What strikes me the most in "Six Characters in Search of an Author" is Pirandello's ability to differentiate between life on stage and life in reality (if such a thing exists). Actors embody characteristics of the characters, yet it is impossible for them to become the characters. Father is convinced that the Leading Actor will be unable to represent him well enough in the play. He modestly states, "Well, I must say, his performance will be--even if he does his best with make-up to look like me--I must say, given his height...it will hardly be a representation of me, as I really am.... And it seems to me that anyone who is called upon to form an opinion about us should take this into acount" (Pirandello 234).
Father is failing to comprehend one of Hayakawa's major principles. No two things (whether they be people, contexts, etc..) are ever identical in any way, shape, or form. The actor has never experienced the character's woes and sorrow on a first-hand extensional basis. Thus, how could he or she possibly be expected to replicate scenes that they have never lived? Widely acclaimed actors are known for their successful assumption of roles, yet what gives them the ability to do so over another actor? Have they experienced events similar to those of the characters? According to the director, "This is theater! The truth, yes, but up to a certain point!" (Pirandello 243).
On page 236, Father continues to speculate about "truth" and the reality created by a scene.
"Here we see a reality that's teased, shaped, and called into life by the scene itself, and that has a better right to live here than you do because it's very much truer than you are" (Pirandello 236).
Once again, I must pose the question concerning Father's differentiation between truth and plausibility. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I feel that Father's reaction to the actress's use of the term "illusion" is appropriate here. He tells the director that acting is a "perfect illusion of reality." (Pirandello 247)
Naturally, an actor cannot literally become extensionally the character he is representing. He can only offer his own impression of it, as perceived through his intensional filter. What we see on screen is the actor's perception of the character, not the character itself.
Regarding your question:
...yet what gives them the ability to do so over another actor? Have they experienced events similar to those of the characters?
I remember hearing on NPR a while ago that the two leading Shakespearean actors of England were in a serious argument over how Hamlet should be played. As neither actor could truly become the extensional Hamlet, they offered their own versions of him, altered by intensional perceptions. Neither actor had extensional experience as a prince of Denmark, but that is not the point of acting. Acting is an illusion, and we should recognize that "everything's a game."
Father: They're quite right to laugh, because here everything's a game. That's why you can point out to me that as part of the game that gentleman there, who is himself, has to be me, while, at the same time, I am myself, the man you see here. You see, I've caught you. (Pirandello 247)
On a side note, while it is impossible for an actor to be an extensional version of a character, doesn't Father believe that he himself is a character? He argues to the Director that actors are not needed for the play because the actual characters (Father and co.) are there.
(Eric Wei)
To answer Eric's question, yes, Father DOES believe that HE himself is a character, and that actors are not needed since all six characters are present to put on their show/drama.
This is actually an interesting point, because it begs a question that I pose here: What is it that separates an ACTOR from a CHARACTER? If, as Eric quoted from the play, acting is a "perfect illusion of reality," then what separates this "illusion" from "reality"?
I fear I may be focusing too much on semantics here, but are there any thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
Father does state that they do not need actors because they have the characters, but then it would no longer be a play. So I guess I can answer Janet's question. The difference is that a character has a set role, as father explained (I don't quite remember the page number). They are stuck in that one point of view that they are given. For example, when the father and stepdaughter were reenacting the scene where they met, the mother wouldn't stop crying at one point, even though director told her that it had already happened. An actor, on the other hand, is able to take many views on the plot and change his interpretation of the character's feelings as he likes.
A character is the role written in the play,script,book,etc. Therefore, the character is part of the illusion while actor is a person who plays the character.
However, in this particular case presented in Prandello's play, the line separating the character, the actor, and the real person is quite confusing because father is only one person.
The situation in father's story is the reality (or at least that's what he believes to be true).
Since the father narrates his own story, the father described in his story is the character. Then the real father is playing himself in his story.
In terms of acting, illusion happens when an actor is playing a character under some kind of notion of mimicry. In other words, one is not acting if he is acting upon his own will. However, sometimes one can mix the illusion and the reality mixed up. For example, I saw an interview of this actress who had to act out a woman whose child got kidnapped, and for one scene she had to cry over her child's dead body. The actress said that even after the scene was finished, she could not stop crying because she was so emotionally bound to her character and felt like the situation was real.
(Jennifer Park)
The characters live the drama.
To Step-Daughter, the drama is her life; no illusions exist. "But I want to play my drama! Mine!" (Pirandello 243). She continues on to beg the director to allow her to "live" the scene.
Therefore, the drama is THEIR reality. The actor tries to impersonate the character. To him/her, the script is fiction, something unlived, something scribbled down by an author, hence Eric's NPR example concerning the arguing Hamlets. The actor has never experienced events identicaly to those of the character. This is what differentiates the two.
(Sam Maliha)
Having read further in Pirandello's play, I now understand the answer to my own question; thanks to all of your helpful comments. :) I can now see that what is an illusion for the Director and Actors, "something to be fabricated," is for the Characters, their "only reality" (Pirandello 247).
I find Father's comments regarding character versus man quite intriguing as well: "a character truly has a life of his own, one stamped by his own specific traits, traits which always declare he's 'somebody.' While a man...so-to-speak in general, can be 'nobody'" (Pirandello 247-48).
The above quote seems to provide an explanation as to why "the man, the writer, the instrument of creation will die, but his creation does not die" (Pirandello, 217).
Unfortunately, I have yet another question that puzzles me. Does the above quote not imply that a character/creation must be crafted by a man/author? If so, then doesn't another of Father's statements, "one can even be born as a character in a play," contradict this? Is Father contradicting himself or am I simply mistaken about one of his statements?
As always, clarification and thoughts are appreciated.
(Janet Lee)
Where is the line drawn between character and actor? This is an intriguing question, one that the play deals with significantly. I would just like to go on a tangent and give an example of when the character and the actor were too close to the same thing, in a way. I would assume that most of us have heard of Heath Ledger and how he died of a drug overdose. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be), this was an accidental overdose from taking certain medications together that should not have been taken together. But why was he taking so much medication in the first place? He was depressed. Why was he depressed? He was SO into his role as the Joker in Batman that he lost control of reality. He became (italics) the Joker in his mind, and he had to battle with himself, with the help of medication, to live in reality, and not the reality of theater. From this example I would draw the conclusion that it is necessary that a line exist between the character and the actor-- they should not be the same. But, everyone who has seen Batman will say that Heath Ledger portrays the Joker perfectly. This goes to show that the closer the actor gets to becoming the character, the better the actor is considered to be. But the balance must remain in check...
Any thoughts (I hope mine are clear)?
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment