Good Example Of Self-Analysis Of My Monologue Performance Article Review

Character Choices

I did consider a number of character choices. Initially, this is not even the story I had thought of narrating in my monologue. But even one I settled on this particular story, it took me a while to decide that I would be a driver. I did consider being the guy fishing with a friend, which would be the person I would tell the story. But I have been to fishing with some folks from back home a few times and I know it is never the time to share particularly exited stories- apparently people need more concentration fishing than driving. So finally I decided the fishing scene would do my rapid-fire narration any favors. In the end, I settled on the driver, which I believe is more realistic for this talk. Once people know how to drive, it becomes such a natural and routine habit people. Besides, driving can be such a lonely activity it makes sense for the driver to tell a story to whoever is there, even if they do not indicate they are listening.
In the end, I believe the character choice did well. I kept narrating my story while glancing at the side mirror and looking up the roof of the car at the rearview mirror. I smoke and turn my face to the window to blow the smoke out, and keep looking at the side and rearview mirrors, a habit (the tendency to glance everywhere at the same time).

Own Habits

As Richmond (106) notes, when on stage, one is both the actor and the character. The character is the one in the story told. However, the actor is one giving the character the props to work with. This is why the character still carries some habits of the actor. As expected, a few my natural habits did come out in the monologue.
First, I forgot to free up the neck, which was more collapsed, hunchback-like. This is my natural posture. In the end it hindered my delivery. According to the Alexander technique, freeing up the neck allows more freedom, reduces tensing of muscles and makes it possible for the neck muscles to extend (Richmond 112). I did see the truth in this argument as, sitting in that hunchback posture, hindered the projection and clarity of my voice, so that my delivery was down.
I also chose to smoke. I smoke naturally and I thought it would bring some natural smoothness to the acting. Maybe this may have seemed a bad choice, considering this was a story about cross-country biking. I believe this worked to enhance the play. Like I said, the plan was to speak in rapid-fire speed. But I still needed a few pauses in the narration to help the listener (and the audience) make sense of what I was saying. But I also needed to justify my pauses. It would not be natural to go rapid-fire and then suddenly stop as if I had forgotten my story and was trying to recall. Smoking seemed the right thing to help achieve both. However, while the scene was in the present, the story was from the past. It, therefore, does not hurt the credibility of the biking story.
But then again, if the smoking kills the credibility of the biking story, then maybe the driver (my character is lying). Now thinking of it, I think the driver lying would be an even more entertaining story for a film than if he were telling the truth. It would provoke more dialogue: What part of the story is a lie and what part true? Why would the driver tell an untrue story? Is it because he is bored and he would rather tell a lie to anyone close enough to hear it? And if it were a lie, would he be able to tell the story so fast? So maybe the story is not a lie, just not his own. Now then, whose story is it? I think the driver lying would make an even more entertaining story for a film. It provides to turn this into a bigger film.

New Insights

Having looked at the video clip of my work, there are a few things that I believe I got right. For example, this was a live shot inside a car while the rest of the world outside went on around me. That outside world was a little distracting. It may have taken away my focus a few times as I now notice that nearly half of the 2-minute monologue is mostly profile. Still, these small distractions made the whole thing look more real. Besides, if the idea is to show that the driver is a bored and will do anything to get by, then world outside the car should be attractive enough for him, enough to distract him a few times. In other words, this live shooting was unique in its own way. It helped extend the plot- at least in the mind.
However, I see few things that I could have done better. For example, I think I should have extended the pass in the part where I say, “the trucked came off the truck and took him off the road.” As it is at the moment, it sounds rushed. It is like the driver is trying to get the story over and done with as fast as he can. But that is not really true. Everything seems to zero in on the possibility that the driver has just worked a way to pass time. Therefore, this apparent rush takes away from that notion, contradicting the impression here. The pass should have been longer, if only just a little bit, but at least enough to avoid sounding rush.
Another part that I could have done better is the ending. The script sounds okay, but there performance does not bring that out well. Besides, the performance is supposed build on the script, provide the action that the script lacks. Therefore, I needed more climax and climb. There is hardly much that unique about it except for the fact that it is the ending. It very much sounds and feels like the bike ride. It is too flat performance and fails to bring out the tension that surrounds it. This may also need some more work.
In the end, I believe I got more things right. Some I did intentionally, such as the choice to smoke. Others were unintentional. Again, upon contemplation, I see that the smoking may have more effect on the interpretation of the monologue. Most of the elements complemented each other well.

Works Cited

Rickmond, Phyllis G. The Actor’s Consciousness and the Character’s Consciousness.
In Jerry Sontag (Ed.), Curiosity Recaptured. Berkeley: Mornum Time Press, 1996. Print.