Don't Let The "People" Grind You Down

As I am approaching the end of my B.A. Hons Degree in the professional practice of screen acting; I am already searching for more study paths to embark on after this milestone. This degree has set off a scholarly spark in me that I wish to ignite again. It has always been an aim of mine to undertake a Masters Degree. For me, an M.A. would have to be highly relevant and beneficial in line with my professional practice: acting. It would have to be something that would aid my journey as an actor; or equally look impressive and worthwhile on my acting C.V. I am so passionate about acting and literally cannot imagine doing anything else. This does not, however, mean that I can't further myself academically.


I am an actor and none of my life's circumstances will change this. Even when auditions may seem few and far between - this trick has been played far too many times for me to fall for it. There does be zero going on audition-wise for me, so I keep myself occupied with other aspects of my professional practice - then BAM! a whole volcano of material to learn for auditions and self-tapes comes flooding in. I have copped on to what particular times of the year are particularly busy for me in regards to auditions and I try and remain rational in regards to my career (easier typed than done).

I had already done a fair amount of research on Masters that I could possibly do - Drama in Education, or Drama Therapy, for example - when I had a low low LOW moment at an "in-between" job the other week, it got me thinking a bit more about the possibility of furthering my academic career. I was mistreated a little bit on one of those side jobs we all tend to do to pay our rent to get by in this "City of Dreams". Generally I don't mind these jobs. I'm a hard worker and I just think how lucky I am to be able to pay my way to do what I love. HOWEVER, this particularly horrible moment during this job made me feel quite inadequate as a human - and it wasn't even my passion that I was working at. It was literally a job I could not care less about, besides the pay. Therefore, my bad experience just made me think "Why am I doing this to earn money in between, especially when I'm being treated like this?"
Surely, the world is my oyster. I work best as self-employed (the only people I really work extremely well under are directors, producers, agents or casting-directors).
Other than that, to make my money "in-between" (shall I refer to that as 'purgatory', or is that too harsh?) I would like to work under my own terms, as much as possible.

IF I was lucky enough to pursue a Masters, under the blanket of drama, I could perhaps have more opportunity to do work in between acting jobs and auditions that I really love and that I'm passionate about.

First things first though, I want to obtain good grades in my B.A. Hons. I only have my oral presentation left to do in order to get the results that I really want for this course. Then, I can seriously consider where I want to go next with my studies.

Other than that, on a professional side of things, I have booked in to do a screen acting course over the next four Thursdays (Acting Up! at The Union Theatre). I'm looking forward to honing my screen technique. My busy periods for screen auditions tend to be August - September; so I thought I may as well brush up on my skills prior to this (HOPEFULLY) inevitable rush of self-tapes.

I am continuing on this tumultuous journey. I am opening opportunities for myself. I am carving my own life's path. As Margaret Atwood says: Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

Connecting Artefact / Presentation with Essay

An interesting point brought up in today’s Skype session was the notion to allow the process of my artefact and oral presentation planning to influence my essay. My artefact and oral presentation made me simplify my essay and pick out key points and themes that seem relevant and encompass my inquiry. Leading on from that - in the week leading up to the module 3 deadline - I now think it is a good idea to comb through my essay and see if my key points no themes are higihligited enough for whoever is reading it.

Bird’s Eye View rather than Chronological

At yesterday’s Skype session, we were encouraged to practice our oral presentation. Basically getting the message and essence of our inquiry across clearly and effectively. I struggled at first to assess what was necessary and interesting to include.
After a few goes, we were advised to not think about our inquiry process in a chronological order. Instead, the best option for an inquiry presentation is to describe our project with a bird’s eye view. This means including realisations and ‘eureka’ moments early on in the presentation - not when we actually figured them out.
This encouraged me to formulate some slides in a power point presentation of what I initially felt was important to include. I then jumbled them up into no particular order. I will now go back to my presentation and review the order they are in - but this was a helpful method to get me out of the chronological method.

Skype Discussion: 17/04/2018 - Inquiry Themes aid the Artefact

I have been roughly planning and brainstorming ideas for my artefact. In today's Skype with fellow current module threes, the essence of the artefact became clearer. It has to display the account of the inquiry. This means it is not about my findings but about the process.
Themes that stayed with me through my inquiry, or emerged from it, can inform my artefact.

In line with my audio-visual artefact, I am going to start associating the themes formed within my inquiry to influence what I choose to portray in the "silent self-tapes". I have chosen to keep them silent to avoid the trap of relaying verbally the process of my inquiry. Instead, I want the self-tapes to convey a bigger picture of my inquiry and to use visuals effectively.

Self-tapes are a forum that is highly recognisable to people within my practice. Therefore, this lent to my decision to create self-tapes as my artefact.

‘The Artefact’

Yesterday I attended the campus session in Middlesex university. There was a mix of module 1, 2 and 3s who attended the session. This proved useful when we began to form a ‘Glossary’ with words and phrases common within the BAPP and MAPP modules.

The Artefact can be described quite simply as ‘a thing’. Instead of leaving me confused about this mysterious concept - I left the campus session with a reassured sense of what it is I am expected to do
regarding the artefact. It is a thing that represents what it is I have found or discovered on the journey of my inquiry.

Post analysis I began to see clearly what my artefact ought to be, according to me and how to portray what I have found to my community of practice. I have used the practice of self-taping and referred to it throughout my inquiry. Therefore, it seemed fit to use a self-tape of me as my artefact. I began to sketch and jot down some plans for this in my notebook.

Different Entities Interlinking

Over the past while I have been working on my critical review for module 3. Things have been chopped and changed to give the initial structure of my first draft. What I find interesting is that every time I go back to look over what I've written - I find correlations between the literature and data collection analysis. There are many factors within my inquiry that influence or underline each other. More and more I am finding that there are few strict "separate sections" within my critical review. Instead I have found it helpful to tie in views and research stemming from different sources in order to reach a resounding theme or further questions. I am quickly coming around to the idea of using literature to underline or compare with data collection and my own experiences.

Another aspect of the inquiry which is becoming clearer is that we are not solving the world's problems in 6 weeks. As I am gathering information and analysing it; I have benefited from the small realisations along the learning curve. Anything that is relevant and helpful to me in my professional practice is significant in my eyes.

I may not be solving the world's problems; but I am learning how I may progress as an actor within my professional practice.

Typecasting and "Stock Characters"

Actress Ingrid Bergman

A debate which I have been having throughout my study is that of "typecasting":
"Is typecasting essential for the casting process & for actors to be aware of theirs... Or is it a faulty society that is leading us all to believe we have to 'fit in a box', and typecasting we see on screen is fueling these impressions within society?"

Typecasting combines a wide range of "stock characters" within the screen and theatre world and which we, as actors and audiences, are exposed to. Stock characters were originally outlined by commedia dell'arte (an early form of Italian professional theatre popular in Europe from 16th - 18th century). I studied the technique and various characters included in commedia dell'arte during my training at drama school.  Some of these characters (although there are more) include:

• Zanni - the "clown" - the comedy character

• Pantalone - the older, wealthy man

• Il Dottare - "doctor" - the male Head of the Household

• Columbina - the perky maid / servant (generally female)

• Il Capitano - the "loner", an older man boasting of having once been a "captain" although doubtful he ever had that title

• Innamorati - the "lovers" - young, beautiful romantics. Of a high class status - also known as the "innocent"

 These are brief descriptions of the most basic of characters. It is important to note that all of the above characters have strong character traits - including appearance, physical stance and status which solidify their role within performances. They have stood the test of time. Since the 16th century - through means of theatre right through to screen and TV series - we have seen clear examples of these stock characters. Buddy the Elf played by Will Ferrell in the movie Elf is a perfect example of a modern day Zanni. Dimitri Godman (Aleksey Serebvakov) head of the powerful Godman family in the TV series McMafia is a current Pantalone. Actress Martine McCutcheon plays a strikingly apt Columbina character as Natalie in Love Actually (right down to her East-End London accent in the movie). MacKenzie Mauzy and Billy Magnussen's representations of Rapunzel and Rapunzel's Prince in Disney's 2014 Into the Woods are matched as present day Innamorati.
These are only a few examples of which I could go on and on... (Feel free to comment any correlations you have made between 16th - 18th century stock characters and modern day TV & film characters.) It just cements the notion that we can't seem to escape the idea of stock characters within screen writing.

Furthermore, I read a really interesting view on typecasting from the Golden Age director Michael Curtiz (Casablanca, Mildred Pierce).

"It was Mr. Curtiz who spoke to me about the idea of typecasting. I knew it was the way, but I hadn't understood how difficult it would be to fight it. He explained I couldn't go totally against the way audiences saw me without wrecking my career." (Bergman, quoted by Chandler 2007 p.83)

This piece of advice / opinion shared with Bergman from the well-respected Curtiz was perhaps shattering for her as an actress. Her response was initially "No, no, no, no, no, no." and she admits she was "thinking how she could get around it" (Bergman, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p.83). But how could a young, undeniably attractive actress like Bergman, who fit so perfectly in the role of an Innamorati, get away with passing as a stock character such as Il Captinao (a character of lower status)? Even if you take gender out of the equation and make the stock characters gender-neutral - they still possess innate character and physical traits which, on paper, suit only a certain type of actor.
Furthermore, Curtiz goes on to explain:

"Ingrid, you are beautiful... They [the audience] do not want to see you play a girl with a harelip... Your audience wants to see you, to recognize you, to see you looking beautiful, wearing beautiful clothes, dresses, and accessories they would like to wear. They like to see you on screen in parts in which they recognize you. In other words, you have to play Ingrid Bergman. This will not tax you too much, it will make your audience happy, and it will make a big career."

If we are going by Curtiz' opinion - society want typecasting (at least in the Golden Age they did - and I'm still not sure have we progressed as a society that much since then). They want to see actors placed in the box they expect to see them in. If that was the recipe for a successful actor at that time - why wouldn't she play into her typecast in order to be acknowledged as a great actress? Even though she evidently struggled with the concept of typecast as she believed her creativity and capability as an actress should not be inhibited by typecast. In my lifetime as an actress -  I would love to play a variety of exciting and testing roles. Whether or not typecast will allow me to do this is another thing...
Now, for me, the question is the following:
Is the acting industry playing into the hands of what society wants; or is society falling into the trap of viewing what they see on screen / on stage as "the norm"? Either way, it appears to me that typecasting continues to happen over and over again. I don't know whether to view this as a good or bad thing or simply just a factor within the acting industry, cemented by a history of stock characters - neither good nor bad.

Whatever the fact of the matter is: it certainly appears that, for a lot of people, "Typecasting is everything." (Curtiz, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p. 83)


Chandler, Charlotte (2007) Ingrid (Ingrid Bergman, A Personal Biography), Applause Theatre & Cinema Books
Rudlin, John (1994) Commedia Dell-Arte: An Actor's Handbook, Routledge

Director Michael Curtiz' views on the idea of "typecasting" (Bergman, quoted by Chandler, 2007 p.83)