Wednesday, September 28, 2016

THE DOG THEORY CHALLENGED

I explained the Lead Sled Dog Theory (see the previous post) to a young actor yesterday, and he wasn't impressed. I didn't keep notes but the conversation went something like this:


ACTOR: "I can tell you don't act for a living because that's not really how it works. Each actor in the piece studies the part and if they're all good at what they do it comes together. If they stray, the director straightens them out. That's his job. "

EDDIE: "But surely the dialogue requires word music and that needs a coordinator, at least an informal one."




ACTOR: "Naw. The kind of people who become actors have an ear for that kind of thing. They're all lead sled dogs."

EDDIE: (apologizes for persisting in the argument, then:)  "But actors are after the great moments, aren't they? The scenes that stay in the audience's minds afterward...surely with such a difficult goal in mind you don't want to leave it to chance."



ACTOR: "It's not chance. The writer did the hard work and the actor's job is simply to present it in a way that's convincing and clear."

EDDIE: "I'm just curious...what type of roles are you most comfortable with? Is there anything you have a special knack for?"


ACTOR: "Sure. I'm good at young lawyer-type parts. I'm also good at being the friend of a girl who already has a boyfriend, but is beginning to have doubts about him."

EDDIE: "Woooow!"


**************

That's all I remember. Fascinating! Just fascinating!



4 comments:

nodnarB said...

What about storyboarding? That is a kind of acting. What do you think about the relationship between drawn acting and live action acting?

The Jerk said...

as (also) an actor, I'd agree with him insofar as this is not something actors consciously think about. That doesn't mean the theory is moot. It's just more of a social dynamics theory, that is at play in a way that does indeed affect the outcome of the performance.

Rich LaPierre said...

Maybe this is why so few TV shows are memorable. Or good.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Nodnar: Jerk: I'm at a disadvantage because I've only done a little bit of stage acting...not enough to make the slightest claim that I can speak from experience. Even so, I can't help having ideas about it.

It seems to me that every scene that requires two or more actors requires a focal point...a person the scene is mainly about. It's the job of the other actors to support that actor with a view toward making his role more memorable. One way to do that is to work with a rhythm that supports the main actor, that sets him up and makes him look good.

If you're a storyboard man working from a script (not the best way to do funny animation, but you may not have a choice) and the dialogue is badly pre-recorded then you have limited options, but you're not entirely bereft of choices. You can still emphasize the plot, the gags, the subtext, the SFX, the cinematic feel, the art direction, or the mood.

Rich: I'm so grateful when people when people intelligently criticize my ideas that I usually won't allow myself to make unflattering conclusions about them. The proof of the man's ideas is his real-life effectiveness as an actor, which I haven't seen.