REFLECTIONS

Status Stunts of the Stars

What is a Star?

A star is a person who is given roles because of a "marketable" or "bankable" quality they possess. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are good actors, though they may be.

Everyone who is not a "star" is just "an actor".

A significant fact which is often forgotten about stars is that they are people and therefore have foibles, inadequacies and problems just like everybody else. One of the problems which confronts all stars is that the status the star system gives an individual also bestows power and therefore the possibility of its misuse.

An actor is sometimes given the "leading role" in a production because they are the appropriate person to play that role. The majority of "leading actors" in a production generally do just that - they lead. Not only do they set performance standards but they also lead the way in standards of personal behaviour. Most of the stunts stars get up to are status orientated - they are aimed at increasing their own status thereby diminishing everybody else's. Obviously this sort of behaviour is quite immature and so it is frequently accompanied by any number of childish mannerisms such as temper tantrums and other attention seeking manipulations. This generally means that the behaviour is difficult to deal with and therefore most people avoid confronting it. The star is thereby given "the green light" to continue disrupting and destroying. As with children it also provides ample opportunity for them to practice and perfect their techniques.

Generally "stars" are capable if not outstanding actors and they often play these real life manipulations more convincingly than anything else they do.

The following stunts have been observed by Richard Sarell while working on the set with actors around the country or contributed by actors from their experience on professional shoots. The aim of presenting them here is to prepare guests actors for the range of possibilities that might confront them. Remember these are one-off incidents and not common behavioural patterns.

You may have some experiences that others would benefit from you sharing.

Technique Status Stunts
a) The star may play the entire scene and never look the guest actor in the eye. The star chooses a point on which to focus just to one side of the guest actors face. (Usually it is nearest the camera.) On screen it appears as if they are looking at each other but in fact they are not. This technique is most effective in two-handed scenes and guest cast generally find it quite demoralising - particularly in highly emotion scenes.

The aim: It might be argued that the star is just taking a closer "eye-line" to camera. This may stem from a dubious theory that the closer eye-line will give their character a subtle dominance. However, if the star doesn't explain why they are doing this and if they also do it when the guest actor's "singles" are being shot rather than just when their own are, it must be assumed there is some other reason for the manipulation. Surely that reason couldn't be that the star knows that the actor who is less familiar with the set will find such disrespectful process intimidating and confusing.

b) A star may give a rather flat reading if they are not actually appearing in the frame.This makes it exceedingly difficult for the actor playing opposite them to pitch their performance at the appropriate level. It also severely diminishes the interactive, intuitive element of the performance process restricting both actors to merely mechanically playing the predictable.

The aim: It can be argued that the star is saving their performance for their take and it is true that constantly repeating dialogue will take the freshness and spontaneity out of the performance. Having to constantly repeat something is a major test of an actors technique at preserving a fresh interactive quality to their performance. Nevertheless, repeating the same performance over and over is the process with which screen actors have to cope. In a democratic environment actors support each other with equality of input and opportunity. Preserving yourself at somebody else's expense is simply selfish.

c) A star may practice the, "You don't have to be there for my close-ups - I'll just say the lines" approach.

The aim: This routine is probably just a device for "showing off". However the effect is to effectively undermine the confidence of the guest actor. Statements like this plainly imply the guest is not making any significant contribution to the scene and that the star can manage better or just as well on their own. The truth is that the star probably has such a limited performance range that it probably doesn't matter whether the guest is their or not. (If this happens to you and the director has agreed to the stars request - take a break and enjoy the cup of tea.)

d) Sometimes a star may re-interpret or re-write the scene to support or confirm their character.

The aim: The reason for this is sometimes hard to ascertain. These circumstances are ones which can easily induce paranoia. Interpretation and negotiation of script is an every day part of the relationship between actors and directors. Series television and feature film stories are built around the audiences' identification with the main character. So, choices which support the integrity and image of the main character are also valid within the context of the story-telling. However this does leave part of the process open to manipulation. And if you are dealing with manipulative people it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between sensible logical argument and manipulative personal gain. This can also be an attention seeking device - both on the screen and off it.

e) "Upstaging" through subtle ad-libs. A star can change a scene from "this is the story of how a secondary character resolves their guilt" to "this is the story of how the main character finds out what happened" by merely inserting a few apparently supportive lines such as "I see!", "Really" and "What happened next".

The aim: These suggestions are often offered as a means of assisting the guest actor. Such a suggestion can be either helpful or undermining. If it changes the story the suggestion is being made by someone who is either inexperienced or selfish.

Inter-personal Status Stunts

(These are less common as they are easily identifiable as being outright rude - mostly people don't rush to this option)

a) This experience was reported by an actor who was playing a very small guest role involving only on scene in an American production being filmed here. There were technical difficulties in shooting the scene this day and so the guest had to stand on the set in close proximity to the two American main cast members for many hours. Because of the technical problem most of the time was spent waiting. Despite the fact that they were only a few feet apart the main cast chatted with each other through this long wait but never once spoke to the guest. Definitely a status stunt. The reason? I couldn't guess.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2005. All rights Reserved.