Actors, Roles, and Relationships
For any play/motion picture/television program to have any dramatic power, there must be a goal certain amount of conflict. That is, the character must have a certain need that must be filled. However, if there was nothing standing in the way of achieving this need, the character’s venture would be extremely boring. Without character and conflict, you have no drama. Now, in terms of defining the character’s conflict, we often define this in terms of objective and obstacle. Specifically, these terms can be defined as follows: Objective – The objective is essentially what the character wants or needs.
The objective essentially defines the goal of the actor. Achieving the objective then becomes the primary goal of the actor/character. Obstacle – If the actor could achieve his/her objective easily, the play/film would be incredibly dull. As such, there is a need to place obstacles in front of achieving the objective. So, the obstacle can be defined as that which stands in the way of achieving an objective. Of course, the actor/character must have a method to circumventing the obstacles in order to achieve an objective. This would be considered a “tactic”. However, one does not need to feel locked into one specific tactic.
If a tactic does not work, then it may be necessary to switch to a new tactic. For example, if an actor tries to play “tough” to become more appreciated and it fails, he/she could try being humorous. This is but one example of how a tactic can work. Actually, the various tactics one can employ can go on for infinity. Actors, Roles, and Relationships – 2 These aspects of acting are critically important because they convey much emotional content to the audience. If the character is able to convey the seriousness of achieving his objectives and shows that overcoming the obstacles is a challenge, the audience will be drawn into the scene more.
This will heighten the dramatic impact of a scene and make it more compelling. On a baseline level, status can be described as a pecking order among those in a scene. Someone that is considered high status will be more dominating of someone in the scene who is of low status. To a certain extent, a person with low status will take a more passive attitude toward the character with higher status in the scene. There are a number of ways this can work in a scene. A basic way this could work would to have a character that is tough or intimidating.
If such a high status character was to walk across a stage, a number of low status characters might move out of the way. This would clearly define the particular statuses of the characters. This is no minor component. If the audience could not clearly define the roles that the characters display, then a scene can devolve into confusion. By defining the high and low status of the characters, we can understand which characters are primary and which characters are peripheral. Now, this does not mean that the main protagonist is always high status.
An enormous number of works are designed to feature low status characters as the primary focus as well. Actually, the notion of low status characters overcoming high status characters is a common motif in many dramatic works. Actors, Roles, and Relationships – 3 Of course, such actions are not exclusively limited to a stage. It can exist in the “real world” as well and we can see in common everyday life all the time. High status attitudes can often be employed positively in relationships of all variety. Common examples of this can be found in a multitude of traditional workplace relationship scenarios as well as personal relationships.
Then again, workplace relationships are often based on personal relations as well. For example, someone that is assertive and demanding can make a good employee depending upon the situation. In some professional relationships, it is critical to be high status and assertive whereas being a low status individual could prove problematic. Then again, being too assertive or forward can undermine relationships both professional and personal. Sometimes, being a low status individual comes with many rewards since it does not involve making waves or being too confrontational or difficult to deal with.
In terms of my own personal use of status, I would have to define myself as a low status individual. Mainly, this is because I consider myself a timid individual. I avoid confrontations or anything that would draw attention to me. Case in point, I do not like to talk in public or in front of crowds. This does not, however, mean that I am willing to let people walk all over me. Instead, I simply prefer to be passive and defer when it would be more beneficial to me. Of course, this can sometimes present challenges to me when I need to assert myself. However, these challenges have not really proven too difficult to handle.Sample Essay of StudyFaq.com