Question for January 24th to January 30th, 2012

[nazgurath]

Usually just an episode or two of the appropriate show, possibly more, just enough to figure out the personality. I've actually tried auditioning once without doing any research, just going by the character's picture, and it turned out I was pretty far off.

[Darren Freeman]

As a producer, a pet peeve is an audition that brings nothing new to the table whatsoever - which is often a result of an actor either doing too much research or the producer emphasizing that nothing else is acceptable. Even if the character is heavily established as being a certain way in its source material, I much prefer the actors NOT to do an imitation of something that's been honed by a professional. After all, this is the Voice ACTING Alliance, not the Voice MIMICRY Alliance - being too draconian and iron-fisted about this issue reduces your actors to mere parrots who often feel restricted in trying new things and bringing some of their ideas and interpretations of the characters to the table.

With that said, I must say there is no right or wrong way concerning research - but doing too much can make you feel as if you're just a mimic and quash any organic experiences from the acting process.

Having done many live theatre shows of all kinds (from musicals to Shakespeare), there is nothing worse from an actor's perspective than not being encouraged to strech your creative muscles - I call it the "cardboard box" effect. For example, when I was cast in Grease, every other actor watched the movie dozens of times to research what their characters ought to be. I watched it once to see what things I could do differently. In the movie, Vince Fontaine wears a blue suit - I put together a white one and everyone loved it. As Lorenzo in the Merchant of Venice, in one dialogue exchange, I threw in the "I'm watching you" hand gesture that De Niro does in Meet the Parents that ALWAYS got laughs in rehearsals and performances. Being allowed to flex your creative muscles and spontaneity can give you very pleasing results from your actors that rigidity will deny you.

The flipside is that any established fanbase may be critical and even angry with even the smallest alteration - as a producer, pandering SOLELY to a fanbase will get you in the same position as the actors - stuck in a cycle of mimicry at the cost of creativity. I ignore the fanbase entirely and do what I and my actors feel works best for the production. Audiences will always appreciate when something that has been done the same dozens of times is done differently - only the most anal-retentive get worked up over supposed "accuracy" to the source material.

As an example... I'm not sure if it was on here, but years ago, I watched a two minute fandub clip of a Sailor Moonscene. The characterizations were pretty much the same usual things that I've seen done many times, with one key difference... the actor playing Artemis voiced him as a surfer dude and even if it wasn't accurate to the source material, it JUST PLAIN WORKED for the scene. And you know what? Every second or third YouTube comment said the same thing: "I love what you did with Artemis! So original and creative!" And these were FANS of Sailor Moon saying this.

While there may not be a right answer concerning research, as someone with years of experience in live theatre, acting is infectious and should be creative. More producers and actors (but especially producers) should be involved in community theatre either on the stage or behind. It is really eye-opening and allows you not only to improve your craft, it gives you experience in doing the one thing so many producers on here lack - the ability to interact with actors.