I've been avoiding Martha.
I was taught that reluctance to tackle a particular task/role can be very telling and that you should always challenge yourself to explore that which you would rather avoid. I've been timidly dipping my toes into a cold Lake Martha only to discover that I am frightened of empathizing with her too much. I've made judgments about her and am most reluctant to discover how those judgments might apply to me.
I find this somewhat curious since I've played murderers, whores, liars- a host of sinners- and had no trouble feeling for them. Martha sets me off. I want to shake her. She is like Godzilla, mindlessly stomping on other lives because she is unhappy in her own. As eager as I am to approach her from an intellectual standpoint, I am unwilling to admit to explore my own Godzilla tendencies. I've certainly done it. Repeatedly. Exploring Martha will give me the opportunity to forgive myself for past transgressions. Or not. It's the "or not" that frightens me.
This is how I know I am on the right track. Fear is my friend.
So, in wading into these waters I'd like to start at the shallow end- a way to bring Martha closer to me without scaring either of us off. Martha is an educated woman who is resigned to playing "wifey" to a college professor. I imagine some of her restlessness stems from this circumstance. With no concrete, consistent outlet for her intellect she engages in "pointless infidelities". But it isn't just restlessness. It's deeper. She clearly needs attention from her father and, being a woman and housewife, gets substantially less than required. She intended to bask in the reflected glory of her professor husband, but she is disappointed by what she perceives as his professional failings. George's failures are her failures. She pushes, pulls, cajoles, and nags to fight for her rightful place but all for naught. What she CAN do, however, is attract men. With each conquest she is simultaneously validated and destroyed. She is torn between her impulses and her deepest needs and unable to discern from moment to moment the actions necessary to reach a healthy, life affirming goal.
That is something I can reach within myself. I know about being an intelligent, capable woman trapped in the "wifey" role. I have certainly toyed with men in my life and then hated myself for it. I also know about pushing others to fulfill MY visions with out any regard to their own goals and definitions of success. What I need to do if discover my own threshold. What "as if" do I need to use to help me understand ACTING on these impulses? I've never cheated on anyone. My own sense of empathy forbids it. I need to understand how to make that decision... and make it repeatedly. I need to understand the depth of need in Martha that would cause her to lash out the way she does.
It is time for me to work on scoring text and making physical choices.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Feeling Sick
Not sick like flu sick, sick like "whoa... I did something BAD" sick.
I do a little blog editing for a friend of mine who is a restauranteur and just about the sweetest guy you'll ever meet. I can't imagine thinking ill of him. I might shake my head at him from time to time, but I'm so damn arrogant I do that with just about everyone. It really is best to ignore me. But I digress... In addition to this side-blogging I have also put the word out for an actor I've worked with before about his new foray into private classes. I've meant no one any harm and believe that both of these people want to be positive forces in the world. Whether they succeed in that endeavor... well, I have no control over that. Today I have just been bombarded with negative online comments about these people and some of these comments are from people who have preferred to remain anonymous. Now I feel like a kicked puppy.
In one of these cases (I won't get too specific) I happened to be privy to some information that these anonymous angry people clearly did not have. Jerk that I am, I attempted to explain what I felt I could divulge publicly and I got a smack down again. Now I remember why I disabled comments on a previously abandoned blog. People are jerks and they think they can bawl you out just because they have a keyboard, too. Even people that you know think they can jerk you around in a comment section. Holy bananas... all I did was pass along some information! Don't kill the messenger.
The horrible thing is, I feel bad. I feel personally responsible, although I didn't DO anything. However, I feel sick to my stomach about the whole mess. Maybe, if you feel you've been screwed by someone you should take it up with that person instead of taking out your anger on a blog's comment section. The truth is, spewing online is about getting revenge for a perceived wrong and it doesn't really give the "offending party" the opportunity to redeem themselves. It's a jackass thing to do.
I do a little blog editing for a friend of mine who is a restauranteur and just about the sweetest guy you'll ever meet. I can't imagine thinking ill of him. I might shake my head at him from time to time, but I'm so damn arrogant I do that with just about everyone. It really is best to ignore me. But I digress... In addition to this side-blogging I have also put the word out for an actor I've worked with before about his new foray into private classes. I've meant no one any harm and believe that both of these people want to be positive forces in the world. Whether they succeed in that endeavor... well, I have no control over that. Today I have just been bombarded with negative online comments about these people and some of these comments are from people who have preferred to remain anonymous. Now I feel like a kicked puppy.
In one of these cases (I won't get too specific) I happened to be privy to some information that these anonymous angry people clearly did not have. Jerk that I am, I attempted to explain what I felt I could divulge publicly and I got a smack down again. Now I remember why I disabled comments on a previously abandoned blog. People are jerks and they think they can bawl you out just because they have a keyboard, too. Even people that you know think they can jerk you around in a comment section. Holy bananas... all I did was pass along some information! Don't kill the messenger.
The horrible thing is, I feel bad. I feel personally responsible, although I didn't DO anything. However, I feel sick to my stomach about the whole mess. Maybe, if you feel you've been screwed by someone you should take it up with that person instead of taking out your anger on a blog's comment section. The truth is, spewing online is about getting revenge for a perceived wrong and it doesn't really give the "offending party" the opportunity to redeem themselves. It's a jackass thing to do.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Identifying the Circumstances
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Edward Albee
It is late, well after midnight, when George and Martha return to there home from a faculty party at the small New England college at which George is a history professor. They have been drinking heavily and are already slightly befuddled when Martha announces that she has invited a new couple over for a post-party get together. The new couple happens to be the new, young, hot shot biology teacher and his "slim-hipped" wife.
Martha is 52 "looking somewhat younger. Ample but not fleshy".
George is 46 "thin, hair going grey."
Honey is 26 "a petite blond girl, rather plain"
Nick is 30 "well put together, good looking"
Martha is the daughter of the college President. George was once the new stud on campus and Martha (and presumably her father?) intended to groom him for the presidency, but George (for one reason or another) was not up to snuff. George and Martha are a well educated couple. To them, words are a blood sport. They are witty, brash and highly literate. George speaks Latin and both George and Martha know at least enough French and Spanish to verbally assault one another.
George and Martha are steeped in the academic world. They read. They lead academic lives, although I suspect Martha is left rather unsatisfied by simply playing wifey to a college professor. She is intelligent in her own right, but seems to have little outlet for her energies beyond berating her all-too-patient husband, her many daliences with an odd assortment of men, and the fictional life that she and George seem to have written together. This is the central puzzle of the play. Why have they created a fictional son? Why reveal it now? Why do they expose themselves in this way to this particular couple? Why toy with Nick and Honey? What the hell is this play about, anyway?
Both couples are childless and this might be the 800 lb gorilla copulating with the proverbial elephant in the room. Martha seems to be unable to conceive (as an actor that will be my choice) and Honey seems unwilling. Nick is a reluctant husband. George suffers abuse from Martha. Nick's true feelings for Honey are questionable and Honey seems along for the ride. Martha and George are deeply devoted to one another, but Martha is obliged to punish him. In Act 3 she says:
Martha barrels through the text as a monstrous, destructive animal. She is willing to destroy herself, her husband, her reputation, her marriage, Nick and Honey's marriage... she has the air of a caged animal ready to go berserk. She uses sex as a tool of destruction. Meanwhile, George, though just as caustic and destructive, seems to be attempting to hold his world and his wife together. He berates Nick and seems disgusted by Honey but he attempts to share his wisdom and life experience with them. He warns them repeatedly, though it is difficult to heed the warnings couched in insults and condescension.
In the end, George seeks to destroy that which has previously held his life and his marriage together- his fictional son. It is as if total annihilation is the path to salvation. Perhaps it is? Albee leaves this for the audience to consider.
As with all good drama, there are dozens more circumstances to pull apart and piece back together again. Everyone's relationship to Martha's father, the college president, looms rather ominously throughout the text. George and Martha's rather sketchy relationship to "truth" is another. While these (and other) circumstances are integral to the play, this is a good place to start. Now is the time for me to begin to bring myself closer to the text by exploring what I know about these circumstances. By placing myself "inside" the text (as opposed to an academic analysis from the "outside") I will start to identify with Martha. After all, that is my job.
As I look at Martha, my first job is to relate to her- to empathize with her. I do not have a set "outside-in" or "inside-out" methodology. I like to let the role dictate which tools I should use. In this instance I feel I should work on Martha physically first. Martha is animalistic, she is comfortable with her body and she uses it to advance her objectives. I...do not. Since this will be a huge hurdle for me (feeling rather terrible about my post-baby, post-tragic H&M shopping excursion body!) I think this will be a good place for me to begin. If I don't unlock the keys to Martha's physicality early, I will be lost when it comes to making those words come out of my mouth in a believable fashion. I will begin by memorizing a chunk of text and using it in a series of physical exercises which I will detail here as best I can.
Uh oh. Baby awake...
It is late, well after midnight, when George and Martha return to there home from a faculty party at the small New England college at which George is a history professor. They have been drinking heavily and are already slightly befuddled when Martha announces that she has invited a new couple over for a post-party get together. The new couple happens to be the new, young, hot shot biology teacher and his "slim-hipped" wife.
Martha is 52 "looking somewhat younger. Ample but not fleshy".
George is 46 "thin, hair going grey."
Honey is 26 "a petite blond girl, rather plain"
Nick is 30 "well put together, good looking"
Martha is the daughter of the college President. George was once the new stud on campus and Martha (and presumably her father?) intended to groom him for the presidency, but George (for one reason or another) was not up to snuff. George and Martha are a well educated couple. To them, words are a blood sport. They are witty, brash and highly literate. George speaks Latin and both George and Martha know at least enough French and Spanish to verbally assault one another.
George and Martha are steeped in the academic world. They read. They lead academic lives, although I suspect Martha is left rather unsatisfied by simply playing wifey to a college professor. She is intelligent in her own right, but seems to have little outlet for her energies beyond berating her all-too-patient husband, her many daliences with an odd assortment of men, and the fictional life that she and George seem to have written together. This is the central puzzle of the play. Why have they created a fictional son? Why reveal it now? Why do they expose themselves in this way to this particular couple? Why toy with Nick and Honey? What the hell is this play about, anyway?
Both couples are childless and this might be the 800 lb gorilla copulating with the proverbial elephant in the room. Martha seems to be unable to conceive (as an actor that will be my choice) and Honey seems unwilling. Nick is a reluctant husband. George suffers abuse from Martha. Nick's true feelings for Honey are questionable and Honey seems along for the ride. Martha and George are deeply devoted to one another, but Martha is obliged to punish him. In Act 3 she says:
...whom I will not forgive for having come to rest; for having seen me and having said; yes, this will do; who has made the hideous, the hurting , the insulting mistake of loving me and must be punished for it. George and Martha: sad, sad, sad... who tolerates, which is intolerable; who is kind, which is cruel; who understands, which is beyond comprehension...
Martha barrels through the text as a monstrous, destructive animal. She is willing to destroy herself, her husband, her reputation, her marriage, Nick and Honey's marriage... she has the air of a caged animal ready to go berserk. She uses sex as a tool of destruction. Meanwhile, George, though just as caustic and destructive, seems to be attempting to hold his world and his wife together. He berates Nick and seems disgusted by Honey but he attempts to share his wisdom and life experience with them. He warns them repeatedly, though it is difficult to heed the warnings couched in insults and condescension.
In the end, George seeks to destroy that which has previously held his life and his marriage together- his fictional son. It is as if total annihilation is the path to salvation. Perhaps it is? Albee leaves this for the audience to consider.
As with all good drama, there are dozens more circumstances to pull apart and piece back together again. Everyone's relationship to Martha's father, the college president, looms rather ominously throughout the text. George and Martha's rather sketchy relationship to "truth" is another. While these (and other) circumstances are integral to the play, this is a good place to start. Now is the time for me to begin to bring myself closer to the text by exploring what I know about these circumstances. By placing myself "inside" the text (as opposed to an academic analysis from the "outside") I will start to identify with Martha. After all, that is my job.
As I look at Martha, my first job is to relate to her- to empathize with her. I do not have a set "outside-in" or "inside-out" methodology. I like to let the role dictate which tools I should use. In this instance I feel I should work on Martha physically first. Martha is animalistic, she is comfortable with her body and she uses it to advance her objectives. I...do not. Since this will be a huge hurdle for me (feeling rather terrible about my post-baby, post-tragic H&M shopping excursion body!) I think this will be a good place for me to begin. If I don't unlock the keys to Martha's physicality early, I will be lost when it comes to making those words come out of my mouth in a believable fashion. I will begin by memorizing a chunk of text and using it in a series of physical exercises which I will detail here as best I can.
Uh oh. Baby awake...
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Notes on Martha
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is destined to be one of those scripts I will need to wallow in.
Through my readings I have come to my usual position of Armchair Psychologist. My gut instinct is to "diagnose" Martha with Borderline Personality Disorder. Now, I would hesitate to make such a statement about a real, living person, but for the sake of pursuing a character I will make this judgement. Martha displays some classic characteristics of BPD. For the sake of expediency I will send you to this excellent post that validated my theory.
In addition to my multiple readings of the text, I have been searching for connections and others' ideas about this play. In the absence of a cast and table discussions I find reading others' opinions to be highly stimulating. Sometimes it is exciting to agree. In this particular case, I find myself in violent disagreement with some of the character studies I have found. Specifically, in regard to George. Most have found him to be weak-willed and spineless... in essence, the opinions I have read have validated Martha's worst opinions of George. On the contrary, I have found him to be principled (although not in the more traditional vein), calm and exceptionally compassionate. Granted, his compassion manifests itself in some fairly sick ways, but he does try to help everyone in the play. He tries to warn Nick, he feels true pity for Honey and he fights tooth and nail with Martha because he loves her. Love does not always have a healthy shine to it. In my various readings I keep thinking George is not unlike the Hollywood cliche of the boy who raises an orphaned animal and through an unfortunate set of circumstances finds himself deep in the forest chucking rocks at his beloved friend to force it to return to the wild- where it belongs. George lobs compassionate rocks at everyone in this tale. On the outside, this ineffectual cuckold is really a courageous lover.
Ah, but that is my tendency toward co-dependency speaking! Of course I relate to George! Of course I like him! Of course I skew toward seeing him as noble and kind! That's MY personal sickness speaking. As for Martha... she is going to be a huge challenge for me. I can get at the loud and vulgar part of her- that is well within my range. It is her extreme cruelty, her vindictiveness... see? It is the ultimate challenge for me to frame this behavior in the "actor positive", meaning that I need to put this behavior into non-judgmental language. If I am judging her behavior I will have difficulty justifying it for myself. After all, everything she does feels necessary to her survival. She needs to lash out, to bray, to punish, in order to save herself in some way.
A plan of attack is beginning to form and the specific text that I will use for my explorations is starting to rise to the surface.
Through my readings I have come to my usual position of Armchair Psychologist. My gut instinct is to "diagnose" Martha with Borderline Personality Disorder. Now, I would hesitate to make such a statement about a real, living person, but for the sake of pursuing a character I will make this judgement. Martha displays some classic characteristics of BPD. For the sake of expediency I will send you to this excellent post that validated my theory.
In addition to my multiple readings of the text, I have been searching for connections and others' ideas about this play. In the absence of a cast and table discussions I find reading others' opinions to be highly stimulating. Sometimes it is exciting to agree. In this particular case, I find myself in violent disagreement with some of the character studies I have found. Specifically, in regard to George. Most have found him to be weak-willed and spineless... in essence, the opinions I have read have validated Martha's worst opinions of George. On the contrary, I have found him to be principled (although not in the more traditional vein), calm and exceptionally compassionate. Granted, his compassion manifests itself in some fairly sick ways, but he does try to help everyone in the play. He tries to warn Nick, he feels true pity for Honey and he fights tooth and nail with Martha because he loves her. Love does not always have a healthy shine to it. In my various readings I keep thinking George is not unlike the Hollywood cliche of the boy who raises an orphaned animal and through an unfortunate set of circumstances finds himself deep in the forest chucking rocks at his beloved friend to force it to return to the wild- where it belongs. George lobs compassionate rocks at everyone in this tale. On the outside, this ineffectual cuckold is really a courageous lover.
Ah, but that is my tendency toward co-dependency speaking! Of course I relate to George! Of course I like him! Of course I skew toward seeing him as noble and kind! That's MY personal sickness speaking. As for Martha... she is going to be a huge challenge for me. I can get at the loud and vulgar part of her- that is well within my range. It is her extreme cruelty, her vindictiveness... see? It is the ultimate challenge for me to frame this behavior in the "actor positive", meaning that I need to put this behavior into non-judgmental language. If I am judging her behavior I will have difficulty justifying it for myself. After all, everything she does feels necessary to her survival. She needs to lash out, to bray, to punish, in order to save herself in some way.
A plan of attack is beginning to form and the specific text that I will use for my explorations is starting to rise to the surface.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
