| | From: "Dr Kevin Hollis" <khollis@m...>
Date: Fri Aug 11, 2000 10:00 am
Subject: Re: [vocalist-temporary] "natural" singer-actors
|
> There is no way for anyone in the audience, knowledgeable or not to
> know if the actor's performance displays skill or not or if there is
> commitment or not. I know everyone will probably disagree with this
> statement but I have seen and covered so many examples of this that I
> cannot find any common quality that can be predicted
Warning:Bit of a 'me too' post.
That was what I was trying (more tactfully) to say in my last post. I've
been
in twenty operas (chicken feed, I know) and all the acting I've learned has
been through doing the shows. When we go and see straight drama my
wife regularly disagrees with me as to who gave high quality performances.
She has studied drama at a much higher level and 'sees' what the actors are
doing in terms of technique rather than some ethereal 'convincingness'.
Do you imagine the actors in long running plays in London are immersed in
their characters every single night ? No. They would go insane very quickly.
They do however have the technical skill to appear convincing and honest
to the audience every night (almost). This is something I admire enormously
and which very very few opera singers have at any level. That's because it
requires an enormous comittment to get to that level. Singers comitment
cannot be entirely to the skill of acting or they wouldn't have time to get
the
voice to where it needs to be to sing opera. (This isn't supposed to be an
excuse for opera singers to behave like windmills. I think singers should
strive to be as good at acting as the members of the RSC, but they wont
ever get there because they can't commit enough time to the acting.)
Kevin.
|
|  |
|
