THE PRO-FILE

WHAT IF YOU'RE NOT THE JUVE LEAD? (Part Three)

In Part 2 of this interview Greg Stone discussed at length the process of playing an intention or "need". This included his experience of playing scenes with no "need" in place at all. Richard then asked, "What's the difference between theatre and television from the actors point of view?"

Greg: Somebody said something the other day … "In television you can edit the bad acting out, but in theatre you can't." And some else said, "It's more about the look than the acting, and theatre is more about the acting than the look." But I don't know whether that's true. Your face is a lot bigger on television than on stage.

Richard: Is there a difference to the way you approach things for television?

Greg: Absolutely. I reckon to be honest … I reckon I wasn't much good on television. All through my twenties and early thirties I don't think I was that good. Because I'd never had the experience. I used to do guest roles all the time. You would come in and do your three days and it was like … (gasps) … Oh! My God! Get it right now. Ah, … you need a long crack at it I think. It wasn't until I got a regular role or a few long stints at something that I started to get any good at it. I found I would clam up the moment they said "action" or "this is your close up." And then I remember someone told me, "For God's sake, it's easier than theatre because you can always cut and re-shoot it again. What are you worried about." But it hadn't been like that for me. I had always felt that there wasn't anything on stage that scared me. But television freaked me out for quite sometime. But not anymore.

Richard: So is there a difference to the way you prepare for television as opposed to the stage?

Greg: No, not in the way I approach my acting. But I think there is a difference in approach because you don't have the rehearsal time - you have to come up with results a lot quicker. You have to make your decisions yourself and … yeah, it's a time thing. You have four or five weeks in theatre so you have time to slowly build up and you have to come up with instant results in television and you have to rely on yourself a lot more. If you are lucky you will get some help from the director but you don't usually expect it because they've got other things to worry about. It's true. And also directors are different on television. Some directors have come up through the editing, production side of it and others have come up through a more actor orientated side. See you'd be in a minority in certain ways. There's a few of you. But a lot of them … (shrugs)

Richard: I started off as an editor.

Greg: But you were very interested in the acting process?

Richard: Yes, I always was, but I didn't know much about it to start so actors have had to teach me.

Greg: Sometimes with television if I am changing lines you know - lets talk about MDA where often they are re-writing scenes and you get the re-writes the night before - I find it, as an actor, this is a confession, I find it hard learning lines that quickly. I love the luxury of theatre where you virtually don't learn the lines because you just keep doing it and you are learning the thoughts and the thought pattern and its usually really well written and it just unfolds and its not a problem. But sometimes on television, if its not written terribly well and there's a few holes in the thought processes, I find it incredibly hard to learn. Because you are not learning thoughts flowing on from thoughts. So I have had the odd experience in television where it's been a case of, "I hope I can remember these bloody lines."

Richard: It then becomes a major pre-occupation doesn't it.

Greg: Yeah. So, you can't even concentrate on the freedom of listening. That's particularly with guest roles. But with long running roles on television where you have the chance to settle into the set and you know everyone and there is some ease there …

Richard: And people get used to learning lines that way, don't they?

Greg: Exactly. I mean I knew one guy on Marshall Law, one of the regulars
who shall remain nameless, and he would have great big wads of speeches and he wouldn't start looking at it until about twenty minutes before we started shooting. He would learn it through the rehearsal. He was amazing. Sometimes you would have to do a few takes. But his idea was that he didn't want to get too familiar with it - he wanted to keep it all fresh and right on the tip of his tongue. I couldn't do that - that would freak me out. But he could. He was amazing.

Richard: There can be bad habits that evolve from that sort of process. Some actors get into re-writing stuff as you are doing it, so you get a spontaneous first draft that the actors creating on the spot and its not necessarily better. In fact often it's worse. Some things happen spontaneously and they are often great but actors who re-write just for the sake of re-writing can create quite large problems.

Greg: However, to the actors defence, you sometimes read things and you think this has never been spoken aloud. It just doesn't come off the tongue - because it's a ridiculous alliteration or something.

Richard: Theatre and musical theatre have served you very well, haven't they?

Greg: Yes. I was in a play once with Jonathan Biggins that was going to be a big hit. It was called "The History of Australia - The Musical" and it was coming down to Melbourne and it was going to be twelve months work and everything. But it was a disaster. It was the biggest loss in Australian Musical Theatre history. It lost $1.8 million or something. But backstage Jonathan and Linda Nagle started writing this play - "Living in the Seventies", a musical. So while one production was going down the drain they were writing this musical and we were all doing that a year later and that was a big success. And after that I ended up joining a rock and roll band, a glam rock band called The Melody Lords down in Melbourne. I stayed with them for two years full time. It was 'Glam Rock' and I had long blond hair, gold lame and a codpiece and boots this high. We used to play to two thousand screaming people - it was a huge cult band and we played Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. The funny thing is we have just reformed again after twelve years and we are doing some corporate shows. So that's very funny - we are all a bit bigger and rounder than we were twelve years ago.

It's funny how little things that seem like disasters at the time can lead you on … it's great this business because you get led on paths. The same thing happened when I was doing this show called "Jeckyl and Hide" - it was a big musical. I was earning lots of money and everything and it went into liquidation. It folded a week into rehearsals. I had turned down all this other work. All these other beautiful jobs and ended up picking up this co-op with Ariette Taylor in a warehouse in The Brotherhood. And I thought, "Oh, well! I might as well do this, you know. There is nothing else happening." And that ended up being one of the great theatrical experiences of my life. I remember standing there going, "This is why I do it." It reminded me of the joy of being an actor. As opposed to doing a Broadway Musical which was full of show-biz and shebang and not much else. A bit hollow. The other end of the spectrum.

Richard: What about film opportunities for you as an actor?

Greg: I did "The Bank" a few years back and got great feed back - "You are on your way son. You are on your way" and everything but not much has happened from that. I am confident something will happen eventually but it's a bit quite on that front. I did do that wonderful play "Beneath Heaven". And now it's being made into a film but of course for the film they have cast Colin Friels in the lead. That was a little bit disappointing. You can understand why it happens. Sometimes producers and backers want a name. I am sure Colin will be fantastic in the role but I was too. If I were the backers and I had to choose between Colin Friels and Greg Stone, I know who I would go for. But then again you here stories of Geoffrey Rush and "Shine" and they wanted a 'name' and the director stuck by him. So there's a lot of luck in this. Talent, luck all of that.

Richard: Absolutely. Sure. So where to for you from here?

Greg: Well I am doing a lot more acting. I have a few irons in the fire for next year. But I am going to be the Associate Director of Playbox for six months starting in January. This will be a new venture for me. I directed a play for the MTC education programme just this year, "Freedom of the City" an Irish play. It was very successful and Aubrey asked me to come along and do this. It's been an interest for ages. Of course, I have been an actor for over twenty years and I feel like … after never having had ambitions to be a director, just over the last five years it's just started to grow and now that's what I want to do. And I have worked with so many directors now it's amazing so I feel like I have picked something up. But of course I will still do acting work as well.

Many thanks to Greg for sharing his insights and his time.

<< GO TO PART TWO