i see three impediments to good acting in opera. first, there is the
concern for vocal technique. in the case of a lot of singers, they are just
concerned with how they sound and don't spend anything even close to the same
amount of time and effort on their acting so, why should they be good actors?
also, and probably a more legitimate concern is that, so many singers
are taught static positions under the heading of 'posture'. at the extreme,
for example, there are teachers who teach their students to have their ribs
constantly extended while tucking their pelvis under. can you imagine
walking across a stage like that? characters move
onstage, singers in their lessons stand still and are often manipulated into
positions by their teachers. these students will often take a lot of
classes in body work (alexander tech., tai-chi, fencing, etc.) but, the
benefits of that body work are almost never incorporated into voice lessons.
where the movement of a character is an essential part of realizing that
being, inhibiting a singer's movement is an impediment to finding the
movement of the character (unless that character is having some sort of
medical examination).
secondly, characters talk. singers almost always start with the
music. i think this is a huge mistake. the text has rhythms in it that
can be easily overwhelmed by the rhythms of the music. these rhythms vary,
depending on the intention of the speaker. unless attention is paid to
these text rhythms first, it is nearly impossible for most singers to
incorporate them into their singing if, they started with the music and have
already made decisions regarding phrasing, before considering the text. and
while music may represent the inner emotions of the character, it is the text
that supplies the detail. (from an acting standpoint, there is only so much
generalized crying one can take.)
lastly, the current standard for non sung acting, is that it must
create the delusion of being realistic. i would blame the success of the
lee strasberg approach for this. and, while this form of acting has brought
about many fabulous cinematic events, it hardly translates well to the stage.
the camera picks up mumbling and a slight change in glance, the people
sitting behind the tenth row of an opera house, do not. add the time
distortion of singing, especially in opera, and the urge to appear
'realistic' becomes totally foolish.
for opera acting to improve, there has to be an improvement in the way
singing is taught. it cannot be taught as a static position where any
variation threatens to lead to 'vocal ruin'. it has to be taught as a
dynamic activity. (i don't really see this happening anytime soon.) i
also believe that all singing has to begin with the text otherwise, singing
is just a bunch of non specific moaning.
about twelve years ago, i saw a production of 'boheme' in boston.
most of the singers were the usual opera stiffs. but, as marcello, vladimir
chernov displayed a style of acting that alluded to the swashbuckling silent
movies. it was almost as if he were dancing the character. i'm not saying
that all opera acting has to be like this, only that there are styles of
acting, other than the strasberg approach, that suit opera better because of
its nature.
mike
|
|  |
