Creating Characters

[ConspiracyPenguin]

How do you go about creating characters? Do you actually develop a character for your role or do you read it like it is you. For me, I enjoy very defined characters. Someone who is not "normal" and has a unique way of behaving. This way, I can really turn into that person and provide a solid performance - plus it is a hell of a lot more fun. On the other hand, if you want me to play John Smith, sometimes it is hard to develop a set in stone character and I find myself performing like it is me. This works fine once I get into it, but it is not as good or enjoyable as the other way.

Thoughts? Techniques? Discussion? Go!

[Tom Marshall]

I played Stu Noonan in "Talk Radio" a few years ago and I really developed the character based on Michael J. Fox... After the show, one of the other actor's mom came up to me and said, "Wow, that was great! You reminded me of Michael J. Fox!" :laugh:

[ConspiracyPenguin]

At least someone finally responded to one of my threads. :frustrated:

That is pretty cool Tommy.

[Tom Marshall]

huh?

[RodThompson]

Personally, I try to take myself away from all that I know to get into character. No matter what it is. The character I'm playing doesn't know what I've done that day, nor does it know any of my friends, or relatives. It's a different person.

So I will use time to convince myself that the world my character lives in, is my world. Based on how the script is written, I'll find the right voice, tone and mannerisms, and then flesh out my character in the mirror.

Then I teach myself to turn it off after they yell, "Cut!"

[ConspiracyPenguin]

Then I teach myself to turn it off after they yell, "Cut!"

Ah, herin lies my problem. When doing improv I get so carried away sometimes that for weeks on end I will be in a constant state of acting. Sometimes it annoys my acting friends and sometimes they love it.

[slimchrisp]

Ah, herin lies my problem. When doing improv I get so carried away sometimes that for weeks on end I will be in a constant state of acting. Sometimes it annoys my acting friends and sometimes they love it.

i don't know, that could be good. daniel day lewis apparently becomes a character and stays in character during an entire shoot. and he doesn't exactly suck.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

i don't know, that could be good. daniel day lewis apparently becomes a character and stays in character during an entire shoot. and he doesn't exactly suck.

He is a fantastic actor. I didn't mean it was a bad thing - I have a good time - I guess the negative is that people get tired of me. But, then again, you are ALL probably tired of me by now. :grin:

[slimchrisp]

But, then again, you are ALL probably tired of me by now. :grin:

lol. nah, can't ever be tired of the penguin.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

lol. nah, can't ever be tired of the penguin.

Well that's one of you! :) What is this thread about again? Characters!

Creating characters...

[tasialabastro]

I pretend!

Actually, that's only half true. I read a script and I just read it for content and story. I read it again and explore what emotions are pouring from the text. Then I pretend.

Playing pretend is one of the hardest things to do, at least at the level we used to do it as children. When I was younger, I could easily pretend a toilet paper roll was a flashlight. I can pretend to do that now, but I feel an audience would sooner believe the younger me than the current me.

It's important for me to really hammer down that script. Everything else comes together after that. Not to say that I couldn't improv my way out of a brown bag.

[Tom Marshall]

You guys are crazy... all of you...

[tasialabastro]

You guys are crazy... all of you...

Negatory, I'm just running low on Ben and Jerry's.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

You guys are crazy... all of you...

Because we care about what we do? :evil:


Just kidding. I know you care probably more than all of us combined. :)

[Tom Marshall]

I think I kind of care too much... more than is really good for me to... :)

[seunosewa]

I've read that actors who just "pretend" can't deliver truly great performances.

[GageFX]

I've read that actors who just "pretend" can't deliver truly great performances.

Not true. I good friend owns a large theater in LA, acts and directs there, and is a private coach for stage, TV, and film. He personally coaches people for major feature film roles and he is VERY good at what he does, but he thinks all the method poo is malarky. He teaches whatever he needs to for the person to perform well, but for himself, he just turns a switch and goes out and pretends.

He also holds a pretty low opinion of people that need to BECOME the character for months on end in oder to perform it.

It's just different ways for different people. His PERSONAL theory is that it is called ACTING, not BECOMING. But he easily acknowledges that his way is not for everyone. (Mostly because most actors are brainwashed goofballs like Tommy and Penguin. http://www.buddy-icons.info/content/smileys/yahoo_batting.gif)

[seunosewa]

Maybe it doesn't apply to stage acting because stage acting is less naturalistic? (no close-ups, you have to project your voice, you have an audience, etc)?

Maybe it applies to screen acting because it's easier for the audience to spot a phony performance in a close-up? Just thinking out loud.

[GageFX]

...and is a private coach for stage, TV, and film.

His theory applies to acting as a whole.

[tasialabastro]

There are a host of wonderful Pretend Actors, Laurence Olivier being one of them. I do strive to find the emotion, though.

As for stage being less naturalistic...that's tough to say, the spotlight is the same as a closeup. Audiences are in a situation where they want to believe the performances are real, so if they're in a live performance theatre then they can still spot OVER acting because they are understand that they are witnessing live theatre.

As for film, well, if you're overacting, you're over acting...then it's the director's job to pull you back.

IMO, if you can get the job done, it doesn't matter what your process is.

Think...David Blaine versus David Copperfield. Both deal with magic, both have different approaches, yet both have found an audience and an they both deliver.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

IMO, if you can get the job done, it doesn't matter what your process is.

I agree. Everyone has their own process and as long as the end product is desirable I don't care how they do it. For me when I read the script I hope that the character will be well defined, that way it is easy to portray that person. If it is more vague, then I take the time to decide how this person would act and then I do so. The thing is, you have to ACT like someone else, but make the audience believe you ARE someone else. And therein lies the debate of whether or not to ACT or BECOME.


(Mostly because most actors are brainwashed goofballs like Tommy and Penguin. http://www.buddy-icons.info/content/smileys/yahoo_batting.gif)

I will accept that. :)

[GageFX]

All my major characters are well defined and the actors know the complete history of the character as they go in. It takes a very small character in one of my films for me to not know exactly what led them to where they are in the story. Alex is one of those characters. I started to write his story, then I decided I didnt care. It didnt matter. And I also figure that will give that actor some room to bring something of his own creation to the character. 99.9% of the time, however, who the character is and what led them there is integral to the story and the universe it exists in. It's not up to the actor to CREATE who the character is, it's up to them to PORTRAY who the character is.

[Tom Marshall]

It's not up to the actor to CREATE who the character is, it's up to them to PORTRAY who the character is.

I don't agree with that. The actor has to have creative input in order to bring a character to live. If he or she has no input, then that will manifest itself in the final product. I'm not saying create something from scratch, but he or she still has to have a lot of input to fill in the blanks.

[GageFX]

If there are blanks. The more the actor blindly (for his own artistic amusement) brings to the character, the more he alters the world the screenwriter painstakingly created.

Now, that's not to say that there cant be creative collaboration to change the character after the fact if that is the desire of the director and/or producer, but it shouldnt be the actor's place to assume he is free to do so.

Again, I'm hiring you to ACT, not to WRITE.

[Tom Marshall]

I'm not referring to blind interpretation. Yes, every choice should be made that will accurately reflect the character and be true to that character.

That being said, on an episode of "Inside the Actor's Studio", Johnny Depp talks about how he played Ichabod Crane as a pre-pubescent girl. That was his choice and Burton certainly went along with it or it wouldn't have worked.

[GageFX]

You're also talking about Hollywood's most eccentric directors as well as actors and an extremely gifted actor who, I believe, is often hired for what he can bring to the character. That is certainly not the norm.

Also, Woody Allen is known for barely even directing his actors, letting them do what they do, however it is safe to say that Woody Allen's films are barely watchable, usually only attended by Woody Allen fans. Match Point was marketed as something that looked nothing like a Woody Allen film, but was completely. I think the reason it was marketed that was was because they knew "Woody Allen" might drive more people away than it attracts.

Now, if I have a male character and an actor decides to play it as a 12 yr old girl because that's what he "sees", or whatever, then it either changes or I change actors. Also, I'm sure Burton goes in with very empty characters in order for the gaps to be filled with his LONG TIME collaborators.

Most of my characters are the way they are. No interpretation. I do have one character in my current script who I have not written a history for because I am interested to see what someone can bring to it.

What you are suggesting happens far less than you would think.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

This is interesting for me since I write and act. When I write, like Gage, I know everything about my characters: where they are from, what they've done, their birthday, social security number and mother's maiden name. Even if it has nothing to do with the story being played out, there is a whole underlying backstory that I create with affairs and things that have made the characters who they are in the story. The actor should take that backstory and portray the character accordingly.

Now, as an actor, I like well defined characters because I know what is desired and what to do. I try not to let "writer Nick" come out in the form of creating my own character backstory, etc, because I don't want to step on toes. That being said, if the director/writer has deliberately left the character a nearly blank canvas in order to give the actor more creative freedom, then THAT is the time you, as an actor, should make decisions regarding the characters past, present or future.

It is up to the actor to determine how the character should be portrayed based on what is given to them. Now, if a lot os given to them they have less control, if little is given to them, they can make a few choices on their own. It all depends on the writer, actor and director, their relationships and personal styles. I don't think any actor should go onto a set thinking they are going to create the character the way they see fit. They should assume they are doing it how the director/writer sees is. If that is not the style of the director, THEN and ONLY THEN should the actor make character choices.

Did I get my point across? I feel jumbled. I just stopped playing Fantastic Contraption and I am a little "everywhere" at the moment. :)

[GageFX]

I think you summed up my thoughts pretty well. Also, at first meeting with the actors, I tell them this history. In every case it has made them feel much more comfortable working with me because they know that I'm not just going into it haphazardly without knowing what is going on in my own story.

[ConspiracyPenguin]

I think you summed up my thoughts pretty well. Also, at first meeting with the actors, I tell them this history. In every case it has made them feel much more comfortable working with me because they know that I'm not just going into it haphazardly without knowing what is going on in my own story.

Are you saying I am incapable of having my own thoughts? :) That is how I feel about it. I think that would make me more comfortable as well because I would know EXACTLY what you were looking for/expecting. There would be no questions and no problems, and that is how I like it.

[-JunK-]

It's all a collaboration in the end. Not everyone is a writer/director... or act what they write or do it all. As a writer if you sell your script or are just the writer, you hope and TRUST the director and actor stay true to your story and characters. And any good and decent actor and director will want to do this... I also trust for them to open my eyes (as a writer) and perhaps bring something new and something I did not expect or see it as writing it; it may be a little different but equally as great or better and still true to the story... everyone has the single purpose of staying "true" to the context, story, characters and doing it all justice and yada yada and just making a darn fine movie.

Long as you are trying to work TOGETHER to attain that means... I think it'll all work out. Of course that does not mean everyone will lock arms and break out into Karaoke throughout the process.

An actor needs SOME room to breathe; to bring your thoughts and yourself into the text, or at very least talk with the writer or director. Remembering your mutual goal. BUT - ONLY IF you have the right to do so...

IT depends on the role too and job. If you come in to be Joe Redshirt and play a US Marine stationed underneath Cheyenne Mountain, with one two word line and get staff blasted in the chest and killed; you're not going to have any justification to burst into a Hamletesque soliloquy as you fall to your knees grabbing your chest, toting a British accent as you whisper "...The rest, is silence." and finally crook.

You're in and out baby, maybe in a scene prior in the background. You have no ground to changes anything (nor granted, any real context to do so) you have a certain role beyond that character... (doubtful the writer made a back story, so maybe you do... but... doesn't change the end result). You're expected to show up ON TIME, do your thing haste free and get out the director may only speak to you once or not at all.

(I don't really know what my point is anymore lol just blathering now... =/

A lot goes into the casting too. Is this actor right for the role? (obviously) but many times I think some actors aren't they may not be bad, may be really good, but they can't be honest with the character. I believe an actor must portray the character honestly. Have moments of truth on screen whatever format that just SING. What does that mean I don't even fully know lol.

Anyways RANT OFF. =)

[Ted Spencer]

It's totally collaborative. I think ideally the director, writer and actor have a healthy give and take about what the final result will be. This way things get explored from different points of view than if one of the three rules the choices. Ultimately it's the director's call to make the final decision, but a smart one will be very open to input from the other two, and to acknowledging that a better solution than his own pre-imagined one can often be discovered.

As an actor, I usually start building my interpretation of a role by deciding whether to play it fundamentally as either "a character" or "a real person in a real situation". In all cases, underlying the performance will be the notion of "playing the idea" of the overall role, scene, or line as I discussed in another thread here called "Process".

A role approached from 'character' will have a certain detachment from reality that is permissible because the world is viewed through the somewhat (and often very) distorted lens of the character's quirks. An actor like Steve Buscemi is almost always coming from this place, although I have no idea whether he'd agree with me on that perspective, nor would it matter, since I'm just discussing my own process. The more "character-y" the role is, the less I need to focus on the character's grasp of reality, because their inner world is where they live, not in the real one. I just move myself into that world, and choices start fall into place naturally.

The actual role in question might be a Buscemi-like or even further extreme, or something as innocuous as the TV reporter I played from character because reporters on duty aren't being "real". They're coming from a highly specific agenda - an act, really. So it worked.

For roles where the 'real person' approach works, it's about reacting intuitively to real situations, not fundamentally different from how I would react myself if I were that person and it happened to me in real life. The "pretended reality" is much more substantial there, and much more important to inhabit profoundly.

I get a lot of corporate mastermind/cult leader/dad/authority figure roles for some reason, and I play pretty much all of these from the reality place, not primarily from character. Those types people are generally quite lucid and self-aware, so a fundamentally character-based approach is usually overkill. Not that there isn't plenty of room to individualize the performance as a specific person with his own set of personality quirks, but unlike the character driven approach, quirkiness isn't the driving force.

Most of Dustin Hoffamn's most memorable roles are examples of the 'character' approach (Tootsie, Rain Man, Midnight Cowboy, etc.). Most of Morgan Freeman's would exemplify the 'reality' approach.

I hope this is pertinent to the original question!

[seunosewa]

Hmm, I don't think the "real person" and "character" approaches are mutually exclusive. I think what you want to do is create a unique character that feels like a real person. Afterall real life is full of weird, quirky characters. I think what one might want to do is to think about what would cause a real person to behave the way this quirky character behaves in the script, and work that into one's act.

[Ted Spencer]

Hmm, I don't think the "real person" and "character" approaches are mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive, and it's not a 'limiting' choice (my words). It's a jumping off point - a matter of process, not definition. In both cases the process allows for huge freedom of choice, and most importantly access to the intuitive, non-thinking side of one's consciousness.


II think what one might want to do is to think about what would cause a real person to behave the way this quirky character behaves in the script, and work that into one's act.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't mean to disgree too strongly, but I'm very wary of this type of role 'planning'. Overthinking the approach is very easy to do, and can kill the realism quite easily. Background details are great, but as the renowned coach Harold Guskin says about acting, "If you've got a road map, you're doomed". My best acting performances have all happened when I was almost completely free of any preconceptions.

Otherwise, as any good actor knows, it's different strokes for different folks. For example, I'm not a Meisner fan, but it's undoubtedly worked very well for many actors. What I described above works well for me. Perhaps it will be useful for some other folks who read it here too.

[seunosewa]

What I described works above well for me. Perhaps it will be useful for some other folks who read it here too.
I agree. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. :thumbup:

[tasialabastro]

Overthinking the approach is very easy to do, and can kill the realism quite easily.

I agree. Ideas kill the moment. Meaning, if you're reading a script and you have an idea of how you'd like to play that part, it will almost always come out very stiff and unrealistic.

Spontaneity within the realm of the character is magic.

[Ted Spencer]

I agree. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. :thumbup:

You're most welcome.

Damn typos though - what I meant to say was "What I described above works well for me", not "What I described works above well for me".

I type like a retard...good think I act a little better : )

[iain.bason]

Playing pretend is one of the hardest things to do, at least at the level we used to do it as children. When I was younger, I could easily pretend a toilet paper roll was a flashlight. I can pretend to do that now, but I feel an audience would sooner believe the younger me than the current me.

I've been involved in a few productions with children. It is really amazing how a young kid can be a very good actor, and then lose it on becoming a teenager.

I'm always impressed when I see an adult convincingly portray a child who is playing pretend.

[Tom Marshall]

The problem is, when they become a teenager, they become self-conscious of everything they do. Children aren't concerned about self image, really, so they're not focused on it.

[tasialabastro]

Exactly what I was getting at.