jordanorlando - Tumblr blog

[jordanorlando]

The looped version of all four emotions. They are in the order I submitted them originally. 

[jordanorlando]

This is a news anchor interviewing Joan Rivers. I perform as the news anchor at the beginning and end. Joan Rivers is the heightened emotion in the middle. 

[jordanorlando]

This is my third emotion. It features a little girl throwing a temper tantrum because she wants a fever. I play the mother and the girl. 

[jordanorlando]

This recording is based on the female news anchor laughing at the goat man. I didn’t include the man’s laughter as it overlapped with the women (the man’s is the wheezing laughter). 

[jordanorlando]

Interview: Iron Lady

Something from the interview with Meryl Streep that really stood out to me in regards to what we are learning in voice and speech is their discussion of the breath. When Meryl Streep talked about her lessons with the Oprah teacher, she talked about how he taught her to breath from her back, not just her diaphragm. One specific visual that the Oprah teacher gave her was this idea of breathing in three dimensions, which really stuck in my mind. I’m hoping to start incorporating this into my V and S lessons and warmups to start getting used to this idea of breathing through different parts of my body and to not have breath and sound only coming from my diaphragm. Additionally, it was really fascinating to hear her talk about how breath helps determine and create character, rather than a result of character. She described Margaret Thatcher as being very “design” and will often have these long drawn out breaths in order to get out her thoughts and to give herself more conviction. On the other hand, her character Julia Child, in Julie and Julia, although she has a similar flutiness as Thatcher (before her vocal lessons), she’s more winded in her speech and has very short breaths, almost like she just ran. Meryl Streep said this is because Julia Cook is always alive and in the moment, rather than Thatcher who is more controlled and processes her thoughts and ideas more. This analysis of the breath and how it is apart of the transformation process into the character was extremely informative and I think will definitely help me in the future, both in voice and speech and even with my monologue. My character, Queen Margaret is upper-class, and while I often think about facial and body language to help determine character and class, I never considered voice before. 

In a similar sense, something else that Meryl Streep said that I really want to start thinking about in Voice and Speech, and even when I do character work in general, is how she sees voice as an extension of character, not something separate. Voice can be influenced by anything from the way you hold your head, how you sit, how you walk. Voice is just an extension of character, and (in the case of Margaret Thatcher, who took voice lessons in order to deepen her voice) often motivated by something. Whether it be conviction, insecurity, or a desire to be heard. This really stood out when listening to the interview; the fact that voice- like our physical movements- and how we speak is motivated by something, or our desire to reach our objective. Moving a little away from voice and speech specifically, I wanted to talk about some other things she talked about that really stuck with me. One thing, in particular, was about the makeup, and how Meryl and the makeup artists were constantly taking things away. While I understand that she would want to be able to act and emote facially, it was interesting how she said it was because she still wanted to recognize some part of herself when she looked in the mirror. This was so she would be able to connect emotionally with the character, something she learned the importance of when taking Oprah lessons. In Acting last year, and even a little bit this year so far, we learned about the importance of emotional substitution and how dangerous it is not to be emotionally connected with the character and what they are feeling. It was cool to know that even professional actors carry this philosophy and see emotional memory recall and substitution, and just understand what the character is feeling as important. Something else I never really thought about that Meryl saw as extremely important is tricking the other actors into believing you are who you say you are, otherwise there’s no way for both characters (and by extension the actors) to connect with each other. I never really thought of it like this, I always imagined makeup and costumes were meant to trick the audience into believing you’re someone else, but now it totally makes sense that you would want to convince the other actors as well in order to connect with their characters. 

I love hearing about the beginning of Meryl Streep’s acting journey and how she saw the way she acted in front of boys and during dates as “acting,” but once she went to an all-girls college in the 70s, here entire perspective on how she should act in public shifted. It was really interesting hearing from her what it was like to grow up during this mini-cultural revolution, where the idea of what it means to be a woman was started to change. I would be curious to know if she thinks, around that time, the types of roles available to women were changing and had she started acting even 20 years, the types of roles she would have played? As an example, the director of the King Kong film in the 70s, according to Meryl Streep, said she wasn’t pretty enough for the role, and come a decade or two later, Meryl Streep is already getting awards and leading roles. It’s really interesting that Meryl Streep said during her transition into adulthood, the role of women was being reanalyzed because it seems that’s what may have been happening in the film as well. That now women don’t have to play specific archetypes or look a certain way to be on film. I thought that was super interesting and I would love to look more into how the role of women in film was changing during that time. There’s so much more I could talk about, but I’ll end it here. I loved the interview and hearing her talk about her work on The Iron Lady and in other films. 

[jordanorlando]

How the Voice (and Body) Produce Sound

In my own words, I explain:

How vocal cords create sound: Taking note from the website/explanation I found, air moves out of the lungs and towards the larynx, or voicebox, through the coordinated movement of the diaphragm, rib cage, abdominal and chest muscles. When air is pushed through the lungs, it then makes its way through the larynx towards the vocal folds, the main part of the voice box. When the air passes through the glottis- or opening between the two vocal folds, the folds vibrate in a series of vibratory cycles that are caused by a column of air putting pressure on the vocal folds. This rapid pulse of air created by the vibratory cycles is what produces voiced sound, which is a buzzy sound that is modified and amplified by vocal tract resonators. These resonators include the nose, throat, and mouth cavity which allow sound to take on different qualities. The vibration caused by the lips and mouth as the air passes through help alter the sound quality. The vocal tract articulators like the tongue, soft palate, and lips are what help to modify the sound and produce words.  

How the body produces sound: We hear sound when an object or another source produces vibrations that in turn create sound waves. The reason why we cannot hear the vibrations that are made when we wave in the air is because it’s moving too slow, and in order to process vibrations as sound, there needs to be at least 20 vibrations per second, which is why a quicker impact, like slapping your thigh, creates sound. The air molecules, when a sound is produced, bump into their neighboring molecules, and it is these collisions of molecules that pass through the air as sound waves, though the air itself does not travel. We hear the vibrations in the air because they enter our outer ear and cause the eardrum to vibrate. As mentioned before, vibrations can only be heard when they enter our eardrum at a certain frequency. The types of vibrations needed to hear a sound include an object itself that vibrates, the air molecules vibrate back and forth, hitting their air molecules next to them and allowing the sound to move through the air, and then the eardrum must vibrate when the sound waves reach them. 

[jordanorlando]

How vocal sound is created (I had to modify the paragraph a tiny bit since it’s written as a bulleted list on the website- so I made it easier to read in paragraph form): 

“Voice production involves a three-step process. A column of air pressure is moved towards the vocal folds. Air is moved out of the lungs and towards the vocal folds by the coordinated action of the diaphragm, abdominal muscles, chest muscles, and rib cage. Vocal fold vibration – the sequence of vibratory cycles is created when vocal folds are moved to the midline by voice box muscles, nerves, and cartilages. The vibratory cycle occurs repeatedly; one vibratory cycle is as follows: The rapid pulses of air created by repeat vibratory cycles produce “voiced sound” which is really just a buzzy sound, which is then amplified and modified by the vocal tract resonators, producing voice “as we know it.” A column of air pressure opens the bottom of vocal folds, then the column of air continues to move upwards, now towards the top of vocal folds, and opens the top The low pressure created behind the fast-moving air column produces a “Bernoulli effect” which causes the bottom to close, followed by the top. Closure of the vocal folds cuts off the air column and releases a pulse of air. The new cycle repeats. Increase in airflow “blows” vocal folds wider apart, which stay apart longer during a vibratory cycle – thus increasing the amplitude of the sound pressure wave. An increase in the frequency of vocal fold vibration raises the pitch” (https://voicefoundation.org/health-science/voice-disorders/anatomy-physiology-of-voice-production/understanding-voice-production/).

[jordanorlando]

State of Shakespeare Podcast

In part 1 of the State of Shakespeare interview with the Epic Theatre Ensemble co-founders, there were several things that really fascinated me from their interview. The one that really stood out to me was when they talked about their company’s mission with the Shakespeare productions, and how they wanted to flip this idea of people coming in and finding their seats on its head. To paraphrase, their hope is that when people first walk in, there will be this buzz, but not one of people trying to quiet down. Instead, Wallert and Russel want to engage people through social media to promote their mission of dialogue as they state, it is “happening more and more through social media.” What stood out to me more about this part of the interview is how they want to bridge the gap between theatre and social media. From what I’ve seen, there does seem to be this desire to keep theatre and the new age of technology separated, but to think that wanting to use this classical form of theatre to engage people through the media is a very bold choice. The fact that their methods of doing so are a bit messy at the time of this interview, shows their commitment to discovering new ways to create a dialogue and to get people to speak their minds- whether they want to out loud or not. I think it’s really interesting, especially when they talk about using social media in their post-show discussion, how they see social media not as a way to distract people from “talking,” but as a new, different form of dialogue for some who do not wish to vocalize their thoughts out loud. Overall, their mission to use social media to create a dialogue and this sense of authenticity really struck me and got me thinking about how useful social media can be to adding to the discussion. 

In part 2 of the State of Shakespeare interview with the Epic Theatre Ensemble co-founders, the things that stood out to me the most was about the play itself. To be more specific, I thought it was quite interesting when they said they added a few lines from Henry VI into the opening speech of Richard III and in smatterings throughout the play in order to expand on Richard III’s backstory and how he grew up in this “world lacking in empathy.” This stood out to me because I thought it was intriguing that they would want to flesh out the villain of the story and make him more understood to the audience. Likewise, Wallert and Russel explain how audiences actually root for Richard, especially in the first three acts. This quite surprised me, to be honest. It is only after he kills the kids that his soliloquies with the audience become more sparse. I thought this was so interesting how Shakespeare may have actually wanted us to sympathize with a villain. It makes me realize how complex Shakespeare's characters are and, especially from a historical perspective, how he wanted his to emphasize what an unempathetic world Richard III came from and how it may have shaped who he is.