I've taken many, many, monologue classes, been coached, taught, tutored and have read countless books, etc. In addition, I've performed maybe hundreds of monolgues for auditions. It still sort of remains weird and unnatural to me.

I've found that in the real world, a lot of the "book learnin'" simply doesnt work. At least for myself, it kills instincts and puts it all in my head. The bottom line is, most actors have to fight the urge "to act".

One of the most common tips I've heard is to play the monologue as an actual scene, where the other actor is simply not speaking to you, or is giving you responses that act as obstacles to what you are trying to achieve, thus giving you actions to play.

Honestly, this has really never worked for me. I find that "tricking" myself into thinking that there are imaginary people out there is great for class work, but in the real world of auditioning, etc. it's kind of silly.

I think for me, I've been most successful when I've been able to make the material my own, give the piece a beginning, middle an end, rely on my impulses and try to keep things as simple as possible.

I'd be interested to hear any other's approach to the audition monologue

Well, as far as monologues go for auditioning, I feel the total opposite that you do!
I like the technique of creating the "moment before" for the character so when I get up there, I come from a perspective that already "had the ball rolling", if you will. Knowing the story of the character, or even inventing the story of the character is vital to how it will be performed. And, by creating the "who" you are talking to, will only benefit you as to "how" you say what you're saying. I see people audition ALL the time (granted, most of them are teenagers), but they rush themselves. They don't give themselves time to settle into the character. So what I see instead of a character, is an actor who has memorized lines. For instance, if you have a monologue about lets say, about your divorce, and it is a difficult monologue for a person to go through (I suppose, my single lonely ass wouldn't know). Now, if you perform this piece in front of an audience, just as a soliloque with no feedback in mind, then it may fall a little short. We may see you're in pain. We may see that, yeah, your life sucks now, and divorce sucks too. But, who would care?? Now, if you take that same monologue, and place someone there that you NEED to have hear your story, then we see you're fighting for something. We see you need feedback from this person. You will make that story interesting for that audience, because that audience will be listening in on something profound, and listening in on someone who needs a reaction.
And you should be specific in your choices as to who you're talking to. If you're talking to your mother, the way you tell her the situation would be quite different than the way you would tell your fraternity buddy. So, if you come at the monologue with a point of view, AND a person you NEED to talk to. By NEED I mean, you want a reaction from them in some way. Do you want them to console you? Do you want them to get you out of your funk? Do you want them to take you out and get ya drunk? Do you want them to sleep with you? All of these are motives, intentions that you have to create for your character. Finding that "scene objective" or "monologue objective" will help guide you in your creative decisions for your character. Now that you have your motives, you can decide on your "tactics" to get your objectives. And piece your monologue together that way.

what you've described is pretty much how traditionally people are taught to do monologues...

I'm not saying your methods are right or wrong, if they work for you, that's great.

however, I think to really grab an auditioners attention in the professional world of acting you have to go above and beyond "technique".

I find my experience of auditioning with a monologue is ALWAYS different from class work with monologues.
In class there is the chance to explore and take time with the delivery and yes NOT feel the need to rush.
But when I audition for a part..the request for a 1 minute monologue ..I know I am not there to explore but to hit that arc in that 1 minute span of time..and multiply that with the knowledge that it's a performance to win over the people on the otherside of that table does feel unnatural.
On the otherhand I can deliver a monologue while in a play and enjoy it tremendously because in an actual stage performance I have the audience there from the beginning to the end of the play. The monologue is part of the whole experience the audience is seeing of the play.

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:
One of the most common tips I've heard is to play the monologue as an actual scene, where the other actor is simply not speaking to you, or is giving you responses that act as obstacles to what you are trying to achieve, thus giving you actions to play.

Honestly, this has really never worked for me. I find that "tricking" myself into thinking that there are imaginary people out there is great for class work, but in the real world of auditioning, etc. it's kind of silly.

Well, uh maybe. But what do you when you're staring at a camera lens and trying to keep it from leaving you?

In on-camera work, you spend a lot of time NOT talking to actual human beings. Knowing how to connect to something is pretty essential.


As for getting beyond technique, well, yes. That's the whole idea of technique. To get beyond it.

What do I do?

First of all, "staring at the camera"? that's not really acting...that's more like some kind of game show host, newscaster kind of thing..

But when I'm called upon to do that, I go beyond the physical manifestation of what that camera represents...What is connected to that camera and how are they going to be affected by what I am about to say?


What do you do Jim?

I believe if someone walks into an audition and has successfully talked themselves into thinking that their girlfriend, or mother, or father or boyfriend, or husband, etc. is standing behind the auditors and is ready to engage in interaction with you, that person should really consider serious psychiatric treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by DeniseNYC:

On the otherhand I can deliver a monologue while in a play and enjoy it tremendously because in an actual stage performance I have the audience there from the beginning to the end of the play. The monologue is part of the whole experience the audience is seeing of the play.

Yes, and as a performer, the monologue thus seems organic and effortless. Yet perform the
exact same piece in an audition and it's like
speaking in Chinese.

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

I believe if someone walks into an audition and has successfully talked themselves into thinking that their girlfriend, or mother, or father or boyfriend, or husband, etc. is standing behind the auditors and is ready to engage in interaction with you, that person should really consider serious psychiatric treatment.

To be honest, yes, you would be crazy to physically visualize someone being there. BUT imagination is one of the biggest tools an actor NEEDS to use. If you cannot access your imagination, and use "technique" to concentrate your efforts into making the AUDIENCE believe that your girlfriend, or mother, or father, etc.. is there, then you're not doing your job as an actor. So, I don't mean you're conjuring up the spirits of lost souls when you place a person (using imagination) as your intended audience. I simply mean that by personalizing your monologue so that we can see WHO you're talking to (and not just talking to a general audience), it will be more real, it will be more focused and more CONVINCING. After all, thats our job. We have to convince people that what we're doing is real.
What I mean by personalizing is not the standard Chubbuck technique of "substitution". That is my biggest detraction from her method. As personalizing, I mean for the character, and not the actor. I don't like the idea of taking someone from your real life and putting them in the role of your feedback...unless your character is soooo closely related to you in experiences that you CAN do that. I think that intended audience has to be real for the character, and not for the actor (in a sense).
I mean, thats what works for me. When you say that we must go beyond technique, I think that technique is what takes us beyond ordinary. We can all utilize the same techniques and still come out with extremely different performances simply because we A)are different people with different physicality, different rhythms, different life experiences; and B)we look at all techniques like we look at the bible. We all read it and interpret it differently, so we're all gonna walk away from it with a slightly different perspective of how to approach it. (P.S. the bible is nothing but a glorified comic book!)
Its what we take from our techniques that makes our performances special imho.
I don't know what your difficulty is in auditioning. It just seems to me (and I could be waaaaay off on this) is that you just need to dig a little deeper during your period of study (of the monologue) and find the little nuances that makes your character truly live!

quote:

First of all, "staring at the camera"? that's not really acting...that's more like some kind of game show host, newscaster kind of thing..

But when I'm called upon to do that, I go beyond the physical manifestation of what that camera represents...What is connected to that camera and how are they going to be affected by what I am about to say?

We're kind of going in circles here, no?

What you're talking about is endowing the lens with a personality - that is, talking to someone who's not actually physically there. If you can do that with a camera lens, what's so weird then about doing the same thing with a monologue in an audition?

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

Yes, and as a performer, the monologue thus seems organic and effortless. Yet perform the
exact same piece in an audition and it's like
speaking in Chinese.

I understand where you are coming from completely. The unnatural part of doing a monologue is we the actor are bringing a snippet of a scene within an entire play to the persons on the otherside of a desk, or table. Both sides are in an artficial agreement that knows we're in a room and I as the actor am trying to sell you "my scene" without the benefit of your not seeing what happened before this "scene" took place. I must convince you of this without the benefit of you being in the theatre, within the setting of office space or rehearsal room which has no baring to the scene of my play..it is a superficial way to do a monologue. To take extract a piece from a play and deliver it in an abstract way ..yet feel that you're not being fake with it.
You can have all the substitutions you want but it's delivered in a unnatural setting.

quote:

Originally posted by avidactor:

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

I believe if someone walks into an audition and has successfully talked themselves into thinking that their girlfriend, or mother, or father or boyfriend, or husband, etc. is standing behind the auditors and is ready to engage in interaction with you, that person should really consider serious psychiatric treatment.

To be honest, yes, you would be crazy to physically visualize someone being there. BUT imagination is one of the biggest tools an actor NEEDS to use. If you cannot access your imagination, and use "technique" to concentrate your efforts into making the AUDIENCE believe that your girlfriend, or mother, or father, etc.. is there, then you're not doing your job as an actor. So, I don't mean you're conjuring up the spirits of lost souls when you place a person (using imagination) as your intended audience. I simply mean that by personalizing your monologue so that we can see WHO you're talking to (and not just talking to a general audience), it will be more real, it will be more focused and more CONVINCING. After all, thats our job. We have to convince people that what we're doing is real.
What I mean by personalizing is not the standard Chubbuck technique of "substitution". That is my biggest detraction from her method. As personalizing, I mean for the character, and not the actor. I don't like the idea of taking someone from your real life and putting them in the role of your feedback...unless your character is soooo closely related to you in experiences that you CAN do that. I think that intended audience has to be real for the character, and not for the actor (in a sense).
I mean, thats what works for me. When you say that we must go beyond technique, I think that technique is what takes us beyond ordinary. We can all utilize the same techniques and still come out with extremely different performances simply because we A)are different people with different physicality, different rhythms, different life experiences; and B)we look at all techniques like we look at the bible. We all read it and interpret it differently, so we're all gonna walk away from it with a slightly different perspective of how to approach it. (P.S. the bible is nothing but a glorified comic book!)
Its what we take from our techniques that makes our performances special imho.
I don't know what your difficulty is in auditioning. It just seems to me (and I could be waaaaay off on this) is that you just need to dig a little deeper during your period of study (of the monologue) and find the little nuances that makes your character truly live!

wow....I don't think I'm smart enough to understand everything you just said

I've been around long enough to figure out how to do a monologue and actually pull it off and get cast occasionally. It's just one huge thorn in my side in this business and I've yet to connect with any one method or person that can help ease my pain.

I would have to respectfully disagree about your technique comment. I believe a little technique can go a long way, and a lot of technique can go a little way. Technique has the potential to make you boring, predictable, and totally in your head, and thus constipated in your performances.

quote:

Originally posted by JimChevallier:

quote:

First of all, "staring at the camera"? that's not really acting...that's more like some kind of game show host, newscaster kind of thing..

But when I'm called upon to do that, I go beyond the physical manifestation of what that camera represents...What is connected to that camera and how are they going to be affected by what I am about to say?

We're kind of going in circles here, no?

I would call it more like talking about apples and oranges.

anyone from a 5 yr old at a birthday party to grandma and grandpa at a retirement party to Ryan Seacrest can look at camera and smile and act natural, (forget the natural part for Seacrest)

performing a monologue in an agents office or a cold bare stage where you're looking out at empty seats except for a few bored auditors, reciting a piece taken out of context...

see the difference?

Put like that, yes. But that's not what happens when, for instance, Ellen Burstyn (in "Requiem for a Dream") is coming apart in front of the camera while addressing someone from whom her character desperately wants something.

I have no idea if she actually visualized a human being standing in front of her or if she found another way to energize her need to obtain her objective. Either way, she was doing something more than "smiling at the camera".

Personally, I know that something more as "endowing" - finding a presence you can respond to when no physical person is there, whether you're dealing with a camera lens, a CD reading in a monotonous voice or a bunch of mostly empty seats. I certainly don't claim it's easy, or always works. But it seems to me it's a pretty basic technique, and yes it applies whether you're talking to a camera or an empty room. Or, for that matter, a fellow actor who's oblivious to the reality of the scene.

I also would remind people who talk about taking a monologue 'out of context' that in one sense an entire play is out of the larger context of Life. Plays and movies are made up of moments - which I've seen it said add up to beats which add up to scenes which add up to acts which add up to the entire piece.

Actually doing the play may help you contextualize the moment (I'm more dubious about films, where shots are done so discontinuously.) But it's not the only way to do that, and even in doing a monologue from a play an actor may choose a whole other set of circumstances than that of the play.

The fact is, especially with on-camera work, actors are called upon to do discontinuous "out of context" work all the time. And there are a number of actors who are superb at it. So it's far more important to try to understand and apply how they do that than to focus on one more obstacle to actually doing it.

Because, to put it plainly, if you can't do it, there's a good chance the CD (or whoever) will find someone who can.

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

I believe if someone walks into an audition and has successfully talked themselves into thinking that their girlfriend, or mother, or father or boyfriend, or husband, etc. is standing behind the auditors and is ready to engage in interaction with you, that person should really consider serious psychiatric treatment.

wow....I don't think I'm smart enough to understand everything you just said

I've been around long enough to figure out how to do a monologue and actually pull it off and get cast occasionally. It's just one huge thorn in my side in this business and I've yet to connect with any one method or person that can help ease my pain.

I would have to respectfully disagree about your technique comment. I believe a little technique can go a long way, and a lot of technique can go a little way. Technique has the potential to make you boring, predictable, and totally in your head, and thus constipated in your performances.

Ahhhh, I see what you mean now. Yes, I've seen where 'overworking' the technique can really pull you away from the work, and turn your performance inward. It happens a lot. But, when properly used, certain techniques are, vital, for me anyway. Acting is not found in books, or in styles. In fact, style is found in the acting itself. Also I saw what you wrote about "being yourself" and then going to an audition with a piece out of context. You make a great point! BUT, this is where I stress the importance of technique. Here's where Im coming from. I take a good 4-6 weeks (if not more) to prepare a monologue. The first few weeks are exploratory. This is where I make my decisions as to the who's the where's the why's etc.., then I spend a week or two honing the details of my character. I work the character deep into my psycho-physical self. I also work everything into my muscle memory. Once I've gotten my character solid and ready, I repeat it, over and over and over, until I've destroyed my brain. Then I walk away from it for a day. After letting myself recouperate, I come back to it. For me, it allows spontaneity to occur. When I audition, I forget about everything I've previously done (because its already ingrained in my muscle memory at this point). So since I've been so used to doing it, I have no need to focus on the mechanical aspects of the piece. I have free'd myself from mental anguish of "overthinking" the piece. At this time, Im open emotionally do act in the moment. Sometimes in an audition, my work will feel totally different than when I rehearsed it. Sometimes, eh, it doesnt. So I can see where, like you said, that technique can make a piece look stale. Yes, it happens to me sometimes, but its my fault, not the techniques fault. Maybe I should quit smokin the mojo....or start smoking more!
In any sense, yes, technique CAN be damaging, but only if you're not prepared to work with it.

quote:

Originally posted by DeniseNYC:

quote:

Originally posted by captain54:

Yes, and as a performer, the monologue thus seems organic and effortless. Yet perform the
exact same piece in an audition and it's like
speaking in Chinese.

I understand where you are coming from completely. The unnatural part of doing a monologue is we the actor are bringing a snippet of a scene within an entire play to the persons on the otherside of a desk, or table. Both sides are in an artficial agreement that knows we're in a room and I as the actor am trying to sell you "my scene" without the benefit of your not seeing what happened before this "scene" took place. I must convince you of this without the benefit of you being in the theatre, within the setting of office space or rehearsal room which has no baring to the scene of my play..it is a superficial way to do a monologue. To take extract a piece from a play and deliver it in an abstract way ..yet feel that you're not being fake with it.
You can have all the substitutions you want but it's delivered in a unnatural setting.

the casting people, for the most part, understand all the pitfalls of the process,yet, they keep dragging people in to do those f***ing monologues.

I think it's total laziness on their part. They'd rather sit on their rump and have food brought in, and think about what they're going to have for dinner, rather than use their imagination about what makes you really tick, and ultimately find out whether there is something in you that can bring life to cold hard text...they'd be better off talking to you over a Starbucks or a cocktail.

so you are asked to display a range of emotions and a range of colors in one minute, so they can crank out 40 auditions in less than an hour.

quote:

Originally posted by JimChevallier:
Put like that, yes. But that's not what happens when, for instance, Ellen Burstyn (in "Requiem for a Dream") is coming apart in front of the camera while addressing someone from whom her character desperately wants something.

I have no idea if she actually visualized a human being standing in front of her or if she found another way to energize her need to obtain her objective. Either way, she was doing something more than "smiling at the camera".

Personally, I know that something more as "endowing" - finding a presence you can respond to when no physical person is there, whether you're dealing with a camera lens, a CD reading in a monotonous voice or a bunch of mostly empty seats. I certainly don't claim it's easy, or always works. But it seems to me it's a pretty basic technique, and yes it applies whether you're talking to a camera or an empty room. Or, for that matter, a fellow actor who's oblivious to the reality of the scene.

I also would remind people who talk about taking a monologue 'out of context' that in one sense an entire play is out of the larger context of Life. Plays and movies are made up of moments - which I've seen it said add up to beats which add up to scenes which add up to acts which add up to the entire piece.

Actually doing the play may help you contextualize the moment (I'm more dubious about films, where shots are done so discontinuously.) But it's not the only way to do that, and even in doing a monologue from a play an actor may choose a whole other set of circumstances than that of the play.

The fact is, especially with on-camera work, actors are called upon to do discontinuous "out of context" work all the time. And there are a number of actors who are superb at it. So it's far more important to try to understand and apply how they do that than to focus on one more obstacle to actually doing it.

Because, to put it plainly, if you can't do it, there's a good chance the CD (or whoever) will find someone who can.

Jim,

You and I obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what acting actually is..

Ellen Burstyn could have been directing her dialogue to a fly on the wall. Or she could have needed to go to the bathroom really badly and she was using that...who knows? Again, apples and oranges...she was performing a part in a film and we are talking about doing monologues for auditions.

This entire discussion began with my need to fire up my monologue audition technique...I'm not alone....I thought it would be helpful to bring this up because I know a lot of people struggle.

I'm sure you're not, but you come across as someone who sounds like they have no idea as to the reality of what it's like to actually audition. Working on camera in a discontinuous scene, and having to walk in to an audition space knowing you have one minute to win a part and show a full range of what you can do are two totally different experiences.

If your're any kind of actor worth your salt, you naturally "endow" (as you put it) without thinking about it. I know actors, (and I've done it myself) "endow" the air, or the force in the room, and play the monologue to that.

the whole point is, my post began as a vent, and a result of trying to get some help in approaching the audition monologue, and finding that the main piece of advice out there is "find a person or thing out there and imagine you are directing your monologue to them"

quote:

Originally posted by avidactor:

Sometimes in an audition, my work will feel totally different than when I rehearsed it.

It's funny, my audition AlWAYS feels different than when I rehearsed it.

I read an interview with Marlon Brando once where he was asked why he (later in his career of course) didn't really take the time to memorize his lines thoroughly. He said that the human dynamic of struggling to find the right words to make your point, and the human dynamic of an actor struggling to remember his lines, come from the same exact place.

He also said in the same interview, when asked if he's aware that he's one of the greatest actors of the 20th Century, he claimed he's not at all a great actor. He said the greatest actors are the Regular Joe Salesman or Regular Joe Breadwinner who have to act out a hundred scenes a day in the regular world in order to survive and put food on the table.

"hey boss, that Toledo account is a done deal!" (knowing full well it's never gonna happen)

the point is, sometimes when I drop a line or screw something up in my audition, it's only spontaneous thing that's happened!!

I recall once one of my teachers at Strasberg Institute said..it's really an insult to ask actors to do a monologue. And naturally we all thought she was saying something off the wall...but her reason was.. if you have a play that's written..why have the actor come in with a monologue that has nothing to do with your play you are casting. Ergo you are leaving them with the impression of one way to be seen as a character that may be far from their play or role. It's professional to simply have sides for the actors/actresses to read for the parts they are auditioning for. She explained it is laziness or very new people who are seeking monolgues. Also one may have rehearsed a monologue perfectly for months or years fine tuning it...That still doesn't tell how well the actor will be in handling new copy.

Monologues are mainly used for general auditions, or if an agency or casting director has never seen your work before and wants to get some idea of who you are. I would assume it does happen that they'll have you come in and do a monologue when they're trying to cast a specific role, and if they do, shame on them because, like you said, they can just have you read the side.

But in the case of generals, they may have a few roles during the course of the season that they need to fill, so they use general auditions to line up a bunch of people who they'll call in later to read from sides.

It recently happened that I was called for a general audition on one day, and the next day called in to read for a specific part in one of their productions. The general audition was a waste of their time and my time. They could have just called me in to read for the part and eliminated the monologue crap if they would have taken the time to read my resume and look at my headshot to see that I was indeed right for what they were looking to cast.

I've been debating about whether to weigh in here. I hated and feared monologues for twenty-five years until I recently took a monologue class that turned me around to them. What it came down to was accepting that monologues are your calling cards and that you can't put one for a specific role together the night before an audition, you can't cheat the process. You need to have a variety of monologues on their feet and ready to go because you don't wear a tux to a clambake; I always had twenty songs in my audition book to cover any period, style, length, genre of show and I'm trying to maintain a similar variety of monologues for those very same reasons. I don't want to have to learn a new one on the fly. A good actor is prepared.

The hardest part is finding the right monologue. You guys have touched on 'responsible use' of monologues here. They're less relevant when auditioning for a specific role but are meat and potatoes for an ensemble company or rep season. From behind the table, there's an unwritten agreement that we know you're starting in the middle of a play and we may not know the play. After all, we all live by the Overdone Monologues List, and seek out new material, right? This is why monologue selection is so important. It needs to say, "Hi, I'm Joe" and tell its own complete story. A monologue all about a decision that was made moments prior to its beginning and is only referenced will leave us wondering what the decision was, not how the performance is going. Don't make us wonder more about a triggering incident than the text we are getting about it. Finally, it should have shape/arc, some meaty moments, and a well defined climax. That's why it's so hard to find good new monologues but when you do come across one, it's a nugget of gold.