One Man, Two guvners: A Hummus Sandwich?

"I don't understand." _Pauline Clench

 As actors, the very first thing that is battered into our skulls right from the beginning of training is never break character on-stage. Keep your cool. Learn how to adapt to the unexpected occurrences that may occur. Just whatever you do, NEVER COME OUT OF CHARACTER! Do not corpse, do not allow yourself to get frustrated, and don't break the illusion that things are going as planned. Cause that what a play is. A planned out story with planned dialogue and movements that are planned by the director, and nothing requires more planning than a farce play. you have to be sure the characters are in the right spot when something is about to strike them in the face. you have to fall in precisely the right area to keep the scene going smooth, and the jokes have to come quick, articulated and with the right amount of emotion to ensure comedy.

That said, things will go wrong.

 Having been in farce before, I can tell you it requires you to be on your toes when your the character, but the beauty of farce is, if something goes wrong, you are given an opportunity to create your own humour with the character and the situation, no matter how brief it may be. You can react an entirely new way and if you're skilled enough hit out your own little quip to the other character about their mistake.
 Why this topic? Well, last night I was awe struck by the zany farcical beauty of One Man, Two Guvnors, by Richard Bean, performed at the Theatre Royal. I do not think I could give a review of this show and do it any more justice. It is simply hilarious and charismatically performed. You're in constant marvel of the Francis Henshall (played by Rufus Hound) and how he copes with managing to jobs and trying to ensure neither boss finds out about one another. the energy required for this part is astounding, not just on a physical level but the comedic timing needed is so elegant and precise that it's like a ballet of words. Now this part also presents the chance to get down and dirty with the audience, much like a stand-up comedian might do. All while remaining in character, but at the same time, the play acknowledges the realm it lives in. Nods to the audience that show that the characters know its all a joke and what the audience is watching is more entertainment as opposed to drama. Liberties with staying in character can be taken.
 This in mind, imagine you are Rufus Hound on stage performing. you say your one liners, haplessly moaning to the audience, asking for a sandwich, and then one audience member (A high school student, no less) holds one up in the air. Rufus looks at this sandwich, bemused at this, but keeping collected asks "What kind?"

"A Hummus Sandwich?" The man takes a  moment. Compose yourself. This is the funniest thing you've heard all day but must not crack.
"No wonder you haven't ate it." Relief, you've prevented the show from coming to a grinding halt...and then the next man on-stage comes on and makes a minor slip up on his line. You notice it, but it's too late. You can no longer hold it in. To much effort with that hummus sandwich! You crack. You laugh helplessly on-stage. The other character is now also laughing at the whole situation. Have you ruined the whole show?

No. This is a show that is aware of itself. Simply remind the audience as such, and make it funny.
"He's only got three lines in the show and he's messed up two of them." Followed by joyful hug given to the other character. And with that, you are composed once more. The audience is laughing at what transpired and not taken out of the realm the show creates, because it is so wide a world that the stage and audience merge. Now simply end the scene and carry on.

So does this mean that breaking character is really so bad...yes absolutely, unless you have two things.
1) The luxury of being in a production that allows for many possible comedic moments and exist in a realm that is adamant about including the audience in its humour.
2) the skills of a damn fine stand-up and excellent performer.

I don't expect to explain in detail what my inspiration is for starting this new blog. Quite simply I dedicate a lot of time looking at stage and screen and am always fascinated with my own conclusions to texts that i come across. What this will entail is my general view of a particular text, my personal issues with it and reviews that have a basis on analytical research. Of course, this is a personal blog so things will be said that stem from how i am as a person in the real world, not the analytical world. This is my place to rant and comment on the things that take my interests as an actor, a fan of theatre and cinema, and as a human being with opinions. i feel I should emphasize that anything that i say is not made to be controversial, invoke any offence or start arguments, but rather debates or to give the reader the chance to draw their own interpretations and respectfully compare and inform us of why they think so. this a blog simply to show how passionate we are about what we see performed in this day in age.