19|3|15 - Contemporary Theatre - Applying Acting Styles - 'DNA'

We wanted to choose a piece that would contrast with the contemporary play 'Playhouse Creatures' - easy enough to do, as although it is a contemporary piece of theatre it is set in the restoration period and we are performing it in a Brecht style due to it's political feminist messages that can be highlighted through distancing the audience from a story line. As we have all looked previously at DNA from the perspective of directing, we thought about collaborating as a group to perform an extract from the second half that we feel we could do successfully in the naturalistic style of Stanislavsky. This is because a contemporary audience will be allowed to connect to the characters within the play, engulfing them within the story taking them on a journey. Although our audience will only see an extract, we know that the pieces we show will be in chronological order so the audience can connect and follow and collect an over messages on the nature nurture debate, whereas in 'Playhouse Creatures' there is jumps between each scene. This makes it so the message is evident in each scene regardless, allowing the audience to pick up on the feminist tone. 

We decided to the end of the group scene when Rachel and Cathy return from the police station. This is because it's the realisation that they are no longer safe. It starts the blame game between Richard, Cathy and Lea. Looking at the types of characters we cast such as: 

Lea: Poppy

Phil: Mia

Brian: Abbie

Cathy: Laura

Richard (with Lou & Danny's lines): Livvy 

I feel that the best way to deliver a performance through the the style of naturalism, is to look into my character. That way, I can understand my character with much more depth and apply Stanislavsky's 'what if' throughout the selected scenes to work on reactions to what is happening around me. Using this style helps to engage the audience into the messages we want to show throughout the play. We feel that 'DNA' deals with a time old question of 'nature vs nurture'. As the group deal with traumatic situations we can see how chaos is caused by the internal working of different feelings, morals and problem solving. I feel it is the plays aim to make the audience question themselves, do they deal with problems instinctively, is it just who they are, or have aspects of their upbringing moulded how they deal with situations. 

When looking at the character of Lea, we see her undergo a journey throughout the play. This is because she is brought into a group of kids who we would see as the stereotypical 'misfits' - where as Lea and her other half (she wishes) Phil, are the smarter, nerdy outcasts that rely on each others friendships. It is due to Lea's desperate desire for attention that she actually thrives within the group, and the group are desperate for help within their circumstances and Lea is willing to offer that as she desires to be depended on, something that Phil does not do. 

Lea’s character has an inability to keep her mouth closed. Awkward silences aren’t her thing unless she is the one causing them. Although she is not as popular as perhaps the others characters in Dennis Kelly’s “DNA”, Lea certainly has a self confidence that allows her to persistently pursue Phil, a boy whose speech is limited only to times it is required. I felt as if there were so many ways to read Lea’s character, making a stimulating character to portray. I began by reading through the script many times with different ideas about who Lea is and why she is the way she is, helping me identify the type of Lea I felt was honest and I connected to the most. To help me know how Lea was intended to be played I researched and found that Kelly said that he felt “Lea is the moral conscience of the play”. Having this in mind allows me to think that Lea in group situations will often stand to her own opinion thinking it is the right thing to do, she also thinks, or would like to think that Phil is the same as her when in reality he is more of a logical thinker which by the end of the play, disappoints Lea when his decision to kill Adam is immoral. 

 I looked a lot at how if I played Lea a different way, it would affect the reactions from other characters and how they may no longer seem appropriate. If I played Lea aggressively, would Phil really be the way he is with her? With his logic thinking, I think he’d walk away. Instead desperation is what I find in Lea. I think Lea is desperate for someone to see things her way, and she sets herself a challenge with Phil. Throughout the play you see Lea perform a variety of monologues that set out to grab the attention of Phil, whilst doing this she shows herself as a multi-levelled emotional girl. 

I feel that Lea would be of a slightly higher class in comparison to characters such as Cathy or Richard. The class barrier being something that had previously separated them must come down in order for them to resolve the situation. I also think that when John Tate no longer leads the group, the rest of the group look for new leadership within Lea and Phil, and due to Phil's quiet nature Lea fills the time that Phil is thinking for a solution. 

Now feeling connected enough to the character and understanding the way she may behave in situations, this means when going through and rehearsing I will find it a lot easier to bounce of how other characters are being portrayed as I will be able to become fully immersed in my own character and react and behave how she might. By making the character more believable I am allowing the audience to connect with my emotions, and if they don't identify with my emotions, their is a variety of attitudes within the plays characters and it can be seen that they will identify with the character that has the similar opinions and feelings towards solutions and how the character deals with the problem. This can help to make the audience reflect on themselves and their moral idea's. This message of 'chaos' or destruction being genetic, or does it come out being influenced by those around them.