The Dilemma of the Composition Role

Abstract

Abstract What could we possibly mean by the expression “composition role”? To this question we will try to find an answer as comprehensive as possible. Are we talking only about those “character roles” mentioned by Stanislavsky? This reference can be considered, since all those character roles require stage composition, the way Stanislavsky described his own acting experiences. But is this the only landmark? Should we label as composition roles only the characters that demand text-triggered stage composition? Indeed, there are characters that assume, within their construction, elements that do not belong to the actor as an individual. But are these the only cases when the term applies? The composition role is therefore not limited to only a few obvious milestones identified in the text. On a closer look, some characters may require a stage composition based on external elements, even if this problem is not apparent. Yet we must not misunderstand things and come to the conclusion that all roles, following a deep psychological analysis, become composition roles. If we agree that the construction of a character involves many elements pertaining to externalization, we must consider the cases where such suggestions originate from the director. Some directors claim scenic effects from the actors, sometimes contradicting the natural line of the character created by the author, maybe even completely modifying its construction. How reprehensible, however, is the acting effect? Has it only arisen from a desire to simulate virtuosity? The term “effect” in composition can be accepted in the sense of the element helping to achieve the contrasts indispensable to the stage creation, about which Michael Chekhov speaks in To the Actor. He confers to it a broader acceptance. Solutions not related to elementary normality can give the actor an unbearable sense of awkwardness, inevitably leading to effort. This effort will not go unnoticed by the spectator. And the spectator, almost always without hesitation, gives a negative verdict to such a performance. And yet, visible manifestations that seem to be chaotic can be lived from the inside, which averts effort in interpretation and artificiality. The actor can avoid some clumsiness in emotions, clumsiness that is spoken about by Dario Fo, among others.