Open Forum

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I avoid using the word "sincerity" when critiquing my students. What I do instead is use the term "natural impulse" and talk about the use of tactics to achieve the goal rather than the character goal itself. I'm a very organic type of director and rarely give staging that is specific to particular lines. Instead I'll give the actors a set amount of time  to reach a mark and let them have the freedom to explore the character for that particular performance and complete the staging in a way that is open to interpretation.

I also use the questions "Why?" almost any time I see them start to get caught in presentational acting. "Why did your character need to move/speak/enter/exit/etc at that particular moment? How did it drive the character's personal journey forward and how is it necessary to continue to advance the plot?" To be fair, I teach high school but I find that when the students have to support their choices, out loud and during rehearsal, they are more inclined to work seriously. If they have trouble articulating their reasons one of their class/cast mates will usually jump in to help before I need to. The benefit to this is it keeps everyone actively involved. After this occurs and we run the monologue/scene/etc again I follow up with "How did you feel about your performance now?" and almost always get a response that is far more positive in their feelings/accomplishments. As soon as I get them to that point I can raise the question "If that is a better performance and makes you feel better about your abilities why would you do anything different in the future? Would you want to see an actor you is doesn't give you the best performance they can? Why? The why would you do it for your audience"? The fact that it is a daytime performance for their peers shouldn't change the answers. They also find that although they may receive more laughs for being silly in their performances for their peers, they will receive more meaningful and positive responses to their performances when they perform them honestly and with a complete commitment to the character and the performance. 

Do you ever record their rehearsals/performances and then critique them as a group? Seeing the difference in the performance (when an audience isn't feeding their need to be silly) may also help alleviate the problem. It's one thing to hear the laughs live and revel in them. It's another to have to watch yourself when the laughing has already occurred. Frequently they may find it's less of a case of laughing with them and more of a case of laughing at them. That distinction can be hard to make while the performance is occurring but it's usually pretty easily seen when looked at later. 

I also have several live performances on dvd (you can get a lot on Barnes and Noble) and we critique them. In some cases the style of acting is so different and one actor has committed to really bringing the character to life and another is "acting" and the students can see the difference. They like watching the dvds because (a) it's a movie - even thought they have worksheets and we discuss the film at regular intervals, and (b) they can see that the struggle with this concept is one that goes beyond the classroom.

I avoid using the word "sincerity" when critiquing my students. What I do instead is use the term "natural impulse" and talk about the use of tactics to achieve the goal rather than the character goal itself. I'm a very organic type of director and rarely give staging that is specific to particular lines. Instead I'll give the actors a set amount of time  to reach a mark and let them have the freedom to explore the character for that particular performance and complete the staging in a way that is open to interpretation.

I also use the questions "Why?" almost any time I see them start to get caught in presentational acting. "Why did your character need to move/speak/enter/exit/etc at that particular moment? How did it drive the character's personal journey forward and how is it necessary to continue to advance the plot?" To be fair, I teach high school but I find that when the students have to support their choices, out loud and during rehearsal, they are more inclined to work seriously. If they have trouble articulating their reasons one of their class/cast mates will usually jump in to help before I need to. The benefit to this is it keeps everyone actively involved. After this occurs and we run the monologue/scene/etc again I follow up with "How did you feel about your performance now?" and almost always get a response that is far more positive in their feelings/accomplishments. As soon as I get them to that point I can raise the question "If that is a better performance and makes you feel better about your abilities why would you do anything different in the future? Would you want to see an actor you is doesn't give you the best performance they can? Why? The why would you do it for your audience"? The fact that it is a daytime performance for their peers shouldn't change the answers. They also find that although they may receive more laughs for being silly in their performances for their peers, they will receive more meaningful and positive responses to their performances when they perform them honestly and with a complete commitment to the character and the performance. 

Do you ever record their rehearsals/performances and then critique them as a group? Seeing the difference in the performance (when an audience isn't feeding their need to be silly) may also help alleviate the problem. It's one thing to hear the laughs live and revel in them. It's another to have to watch yourself when the laughing has already occurred. Frequently they may find it's less of a case of laughing with them and more of a case of laughing at them. That distinction can be hard to make while the performance is occurring but it's usually pretty easily seen when looked at later. 

I also have several live performances on dvd (you can get a lot on Barnes and Noble) and we critique them. In some cases the style of acting is so different and one actor has committed to really bringing the character to life and another is "acting" and the students can see the difference. They like watching the dvds because (a) it's a movie - even thought they have worksheets and we discuss the film at regular intervals, and (b) they can see that the struggle with this concept is one that goes beyond the classroom.

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I have always taught my students that the best comic actors' characters do not think that they are funny.  Variety show skits are a different story.  The joke is often an inside joke that is shared by audience and performer and it is secondary to the story, which we strive to deliver in legitimate theatre.  The trick is knowing the difference.

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

When I taught HS theatre, my students knew that this type of stuff was contrary to a great performance. I had a few tricks and tip that I used along the way to set and maintain expectation. Some may work for you, but as always, your mileage may vary. When I was an AD on the Elem. side, I used some of these with ES/MS kids as well.

1. Every show I've ever directed, in whatever setting (school, church, community) begins at audition or read through with the words: "I have no interest in doing a nice (school/church/community) show. We will be doing a great show, period."

2. Heavy doses of the concept of "be here now."

3. Correction of upstaging during rehearsals.

4. If doing a drama, reminders that we can't play it with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude, or we break the spell.

5 (a). These behaviors usually manifest more when doing comedies. I consider myself a student of comedy, and my casts can pretty much recite the following Mel Brooks quote:
"There’s one thing you’ve got to understand before you can direct comedy. Comedy is serious—deadly serious. Never, never try to be funny! The actors must be serious. Only the situation must be absurd. Funny is in the writing, not in the performing. If the situation isn’t absurd, no amount of hoke will help. And another thing, the more serious the situation, the funnier the comedy can be. The greatest comedy plays against the greatest tragedy. Comedy is a red rubber ball and if you throw it against a soft, funny wall, it will not come back. But if you throw it against the hard wall of ultimate reality, it will bounce back and be very lively. Very, very few people understand this."

5 (b). I use multiple examples of successful "zany" comedy that relies on the characters believing totally in their surroundings. I often tell them that the true reason "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a riot is because Graham Chapman plays King Arthur completely straight. This leads into discussions of the importance and difficulty of being "the straight man." (This is usually followed by listening to "Who's on First," and some "2000 Year Old Man" sketches. :)  )

5 (c). I teach this concept:

CLOWN: Wants you to laugh at what they DO.

COMEDIAN: Wants you to laugh at what they SAY

HUMORIST: Wants you to laugh at what they THINK.

None of these is a COMIC ACTOR. My fave definition:

A Comedian says funny things.
A Comic Actor says things funny.

Most comic actors are horrible standups. Most comedians make better dramatic actors. (Typically because they are used to mining pain for inspiration.)

Comic Actors use character and script to find the laughs.

6. In order to let off steam, I allowed my students to continue a long running school tradition: It was called "Sleazy Saturday." It was closing night, and it was typically when the cast would throw in a ton of in-jokes, 4th wall breaks, etc. BUT: I modified it. I told them "All Sleazy Saturday gags must be run through me. If you pull one out without my approval, you will find you have a very tough time getting into the next production. The gag must not upstage the show." Before I took over the program, Sleazy Saturday was turning into a game of "can you top this" with mixed results. By the end of my three-year run, students barely asked to do any gags, because they were too committed to the show.

So, there you go. Some items from the toolbox of one director. Hope some of them are helpful.

Scott

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

When I taught HS theatre, my students knew that this type of stuff was contrary to a great performance. I had a few tricks and tip that I used along the way to set and maintain expectation. Some may work for you, but as always, your mileage may vary. When I was an AD on the Elem. side, I used some of these with ES/MS kids as well.

1. Every show I've ever directed, in whatever setting (school, church, community) begins at audition or read through with the words: "I have no interest in doing a nice (school/church/community) show. We will be doing a great show, period."

2. Heavy doses of the concept of "be here now."

3. Correction of upstaging during rehearsals.

4. If doing a drama, reminders that we can't play it with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude, or we break the spell.

5 (a). These behaviors usually manifest more when doing comedies. I consider myself a student of comedy, and my casts can pretty much recite the following Mel Brooks quote:
"There’s one thing you’ve got to understand before you can direct comedy. Comedy is serious—deadly serious. Never, never try to be funny! The actors must be serious. Only the situation must be absurd. Funny is in the writing, not in the performing. If the situation isn’t absurd, no amount of hoke will help. And another thing, the more serious the situation, the funnier the comedy can be. The greatest comedy plays against the greatest tragedy. Comedy is a red rubber ball and if you throw it against a soft, funny wall, it will not come back. But if you throw it against the hard wall of ultimate reality, it will bounce back and be very lively. Very, very few people understand this."

5 (b). I use multiple examples of successful "zany" comedy that relies on the characters believing totally in their surroundings. I often tell them that the true reason "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a riot is because Graham Chapman plays King Arthur completely straight. This leads into discussions of the importance and difficulty of being "the straight man." (This is usually followed by listening to "Who's on First," and some "2000 Year Old Man" sketches. :)  )

5 (c). I teach this concept:

CLOWN: Wants you to laugh at what they DO.

COMEDIAN: Wants you to laugh at what they SAY

HUMORIST: Wants you to laugh at what they THINK.

None of these is a COMIC ACTOR. My fave definition:

A Comedian says funny things.
A Comic Actor says things funny.

Most comic actors are horrible standups. Most comedians make better dramatic actors. (Typically because they are used to mining pain for inspiration.)

Comic Actors use character and script to find the laughs.

6. In order to let off steam, I allowed my students to continue a long running school tradition: It was called "Sleazy Saturday." It was closing night, and it was typically when the cast would throw in a ton of in-jokes, 4th wall breaks, etc. BUT: I modified it. I told them "All Sleazy Saturday gags must be run through me. If you pull one out without my approval, you will find you have a very tough time getting into the next production. The gag must not upstage the show." Before I took over the program, Sleazy Saturday was turning into a game of "can you top this" with mixed results. By the end of my three-year run, students barely asked to do any gags, because they were too committed to the show.

So, there you go. Some items from the toolbox of one director. Hope some of them are helpful.

Scott

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!

I have a question that I don't feel like I've seen asked here.

One of my pet peeves is when my (middle school) students give performances that are clearly making fun of the character/story/the art of acting itself.

It often manifests as one of those weird gray areas, as in the actor is ticking plenty of boxes on any reasonable rubric: he or she is projecting well, is using movement well, is memorized, etc. However, rather than bringing the character and story to life and honoring the character, all of the actor's energy goes into "look how funny it is that I'm up here, acting and everything.  Hahaha!"

I give regular notes on this phenomenon, and I was even called out recently by one of my more outspoken contrarian students on this (not the performer in question) whose essential point was "I think you're wrong.  He was just trying to make the performance as entertaining as possible for us, and, after all, isn't that part of the point of performing?  If we, the audience, enjoyed it--and you're always harping on the actor's obligation to the audience--what's the problem?"  (Her statement was less eloquent.)

I have also noted over the years this tension playing out when I (regularly) have students do an evening performance for an audience primarily of parents and also have them do a daytime performance for their peers.  Frequently, the same student actors who commit fully in the evening will be breaking like Tim Conway and Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett show in front of their peers during the day and, honestly, my impression is that they think both experiences were equally successful and may have even preferred the exhilaration of the silly performance.  It's been such an acute pain for me that I've often thought of discontinuing daytime student performances.  

I get all of the psychology at work here: adolescents, fixation on peer approval, protecting themselves by pretending to be too cool for this, blah, blah, blah.

My question is this:  do other teachers have successful strategies for combatting this problem?  I do, as I've said, attack it head-on through notes, but I don't always seem to reach the kids with this message.  Does anyone else feel the need attack the sincerity problem head-on?  Also, I'm wondering if "sincerity" (or an equivalent) is a term that needs to work its way into our teaching vocabulary/commonly used rubrics.  I understand that my latter example of willful breaking of character is probably already in our teaching vocabulary, as I believe that continuity of character is something that's already taught and assessed (in this way, maybe it wasn't the best example, but I feel like it's all a part of the same problem).  What I guess I'm more interested in is the battle against the "look at me, I'm acting!  isn't that silly?" trend that I observe. 

Thanks always for offering your perspective, and for those of us who are not yet on break....almost there!