It seems to me that many of our students have the cart before the horse. They believe that to accurately portray characters in stories (both dramatic and non--hence, allegedly humorous) they must a. sing, b. dance, c. cry real tears, d. caricature the characters in falsetto or vibrato, e. scream (following the age old debate maxim "The verity of a statement is in direct proportion to the loudness of its delivery."), and f. all or some of the above. Nothing could be finer--or farther from the truth.
First of all, what is the nature of the activity that we are engaged in? Are we becoming the characters as we "do" the literature or are we suggesting the characters? The difference is more than just semantics or forensical hair-splitting. If the student is acting the character out as he says his lines, then maybe we had better rename the event.
Alas you say, what's all the hullabaloo? Is this going to be another Old Fogie diatribe by a conservative that refuses to adapt to the times and is bitter that his kids haven't placed at a major tournament in an interpretation event since before the Flood? (O.K. maybe the bitterness part is not a root, maybe it's just a germinating seed....) Is this old coach broken down by the relentless cries of students that remind him that student X at E-Z Interp HS does it "that way" and he always wins? The fundamental issue is that interpretation is the bridge over which we lead the audience to the understanding of the author's literature. In acting we demonstrate, and often the audience spectates. In interpretation we draw the author's picture in the mind's eye of the audience. Shall we say that we play connect-the-dots with the audience in interpretation, and in acting we flesh out the pictures with multiple colors?
That is not to say that subtleties and nuances of meaning are not endemic to both. Often what is not said or done is just as powerful in acting as what is done or said. But in interpretation we restrict our movement and actions in order to get the audience to see with the mind's eye. When our efforts to communicate the author's meaning become obvious (like the beginning doubles skating couple that grunts every time he hoists his waif-like partner for a one-and-one-half double axle what-cha-ma-call-it), then the picture is distorted.
But, I believe I have strayed too far from the beaten path and forgotten the tutorial nature of this article. How do we create believable characters in interpretation?
This is the interpreter's best friend. We use it to create multiple characters conversing during our stories. It is formed as the interpreter stands in the front of the room. His focus is no wider than the corners of the room. This is to encourage him to front most of his action to the audience and to allow the audience to see most of his facial expressions and gestures. Avoiding profile actions is paramount to increasing your audience's understanding of what is transpiring.
The question is raised--How many characters can I have on the V in a story? The only limit on the V is your own ability and God-given talents to accurately and distinctly portray them. For each character you should have an assigned place on the wall slightly above the audience's head. Characters should be close enough on the V so that you can quickly assume a character when the last character has spoken. Often, we see a scene in which there are only two characters and rather than have them on just either side of center, the student places them on the outer extreme of the V. Smooth, quick transitions contribute to making this enjoyable to watch and listen. When the character speaks, you should look at that spot as if you are the character talking to the other person. Since no one stares at anyone when they talk to them continuously, you do have the freedom to look around as the character speaks. For clarity, however, you should begin and end with the character's lines in the same spot on the V to avoid confusing your audience. Each character's voice should be different in pitch, rate, and quality to avoid confusion. You don't have to go up and down the musical scale or constantly readjust the metronome. Subtle differences distinguish the painter from the do-it-by-the-numbers guy. Ideally, each character should have some sort of distinctive mannerism to physically distinguish him from the others. A hand on the hip or chin, a particular gesture with the finger or hand, a mannerism like tilting the head or nodding might help. Opposing characters should be on opposite sides of the V. Lines of attribution (or tag lines) should be omitted when they become redundant. If Dad enters the room we don't need to say "he said" after each of his lines. Tag lines that are necessary for clarity should be retained like "she said effortlessly over and over again as he picked her up and carried her over the mantel into wedded bliss" (pardon the Maudlin example). These tag lines that are primarily decriptive (like the narration) belong in the middle of the V and are directed toward the audience.
What about differences in character heights--say, a child talking to a giant? Should I look up until I get a nosebleed? As one of my fine teachers used to say, "Remember, Miss Interp, the Rule of the Eyes. The eyes are the windows to the soul." When we look up so high that all the audience sees are the whites of our eyes, then either we are looking too high or we are dead. Since the latter state is almost as undesirable as the former, we suggest a height difference of a child looking up by elevating our gaze slightly up --but certainly to higher then the ceiling in the back of the room. When the adult talks to the child, he must look down. How far down do we go? Glad you asked. Pick a midpoint in the audience and talk to that spot. Remember most of your other characters are on the same level plane (shades of Geometry). Any slight variations in your focus creates a distinction for that character.
Should I do or say the sounds in the script? My general rule is that if you can do it, then you don't need to say it and describe it. That's redundant and repetitive (get it?). Sounds you might do include creaking doors, baying wolves, bottles popping, etc.
Can I move? While Ms. Charlotte Lee might beg to differ with me, I think the current restriction on movement is wise. Turning to the side to exit, the widening of the footbase to suggest male/female distinction, a small step forward to suggest weariness, etc., I find acceptable. Walking, pacing, even excessive turning at the waist can be impediments to our audience understanding. Is interpretation nothing more than acting in one place? To help preserve the distinction that interpreting is a thinking person's activity that is just as rewarding as acting, we need to set clearly defined boundaries to keep our activity from becoming something it is not. When I was learning about interpretation in college both undergraduate and graduate school, it was pounded into my head that restraint is the key to successful interpretation. My tics, mannerisms, and penchant for travelling as an interpreter don't allow the audience to see in their mind's eye Henry in Lion in Winter in one line and then Eleanor in the same cutting.
What tools do I have in my arsenal of emphasis to help the audience understand the character's lines? Pitch, pause, and punch are the alliterative little three p brothers that I teach my students. Our trouble is that we favor one over the other and hence become predictable in our patterns of emphasis. Variety is the key.
What should I emphasize? Consonants give clarity and vowels give beauty of utterance. Subjects and verbs, negations, conditionals, comparisons and contrasts, and absolutes merit consideration for emphasis. Remind the student that proper stress and subordination like verbal sentence diagramming are essential for audience understanding.
I guess I could go on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseam, but I fear that the restrained subtleties of my postulating have put too many of you to sleep.
Forensically Yours,
I am Miss Interp
