Acting Rubric

classroom

This acting rubric focuses on six primary areas in which an actor may be evaluated. It considers how the student actor is able to portray a character, how well they prepared and their ability to sustain the character throughout the performance. Ensemble work, the ability to work with others is also evaluated. You may download this chart here acting rubric

 ACTING RUBRIC

Character Development
How well has the student researched, developed, and delivered their character? *Character’s motivation is well-defined. *Depth and range of emotion is expansive. *Life and world of character is illuminated brilliantly through actor’s performance. *Character’s motivation is somewhat defined. *Depth and range of emotion is adequate. *Life and world of character is superficial, but adequately displayed through actor’s performance. *Character’s motivation is lacking. *There is little depth or range of emotion. *Life and world of character is not illuminated by actor’s performance. *Student is doing little more than reading from the book.
Voice 
Does the student use her/his voice as an instrument to propel their performance? *Student consistently uses their voice expressively and articulately. *Student projects their voice clearly. *Student utilizes their voice to include variations of pitch, rate, volume, and tone consistent to their character. *Student enunciates clearly. *Student varies voice pitch and tone, and reflects some level of expressiveness. *Student strives to enunciate and add variations, but overall effect is flimsy – due to either too much or too little expression. *Student exhibits poor vocal enunciation and no variations in volume and/or pitch.
Movement 
Is the body utilized to the student’s utmost ability to aid in development of character’s intent and delivery of lines? *Student employs phenomenal use of physicality to enhance character with body movements and facial expressions. *Student uses a variety of blocking to add interest to the piece. *Student’s movements always reflect purpose *Student strives to appropriate use of physicality to enhance character with body movement and facial expression. *Student uses an appropriate amount of blocking to add interest to the piece. *Student’s movements usually reflect purpose. * Student strives to employ appropriate use of physicality, but overall affect is flimsy – due to either too much or too little expression. *Student’s movements rarely reflect purpose. *Student employs little to no physicality in scene. *Student’s moves are without purpose.
Preparation
How much time did the student apparently spend in preparation for their performance? Student’s lines are delivered flawlessly from memory. *Student fluidly delivers her/his lines while hitting their marks confidently. *Student obviously spent a significant amount of time on project and came to class ready and prepared. *Student delivers lines and hits marks well and with few errors. *Student spent an appropriate amount of time preparing for project. *Student has trouble delivering lines without calling for them. *Student lacks any fluidity in movement and delivery of lines; did not spend nearly enough time in preparation. *Student cannot perform without the book. *Student has no fluidity and is obviously not prepared.
Focus
Does the student retain focus (stay in character) throughout the entire performance? *Student stays completely immersed in their character throughout the entire performance. *Student never breaks focus, even during missed lines/cues. *Student weaves in and out of character slightly throughout performance. *Student subtly breaks focus when thinking of next line/cue or out of obvious nervousness. *Student never truly immerses enough into their character to produce any kind of believability. *Student’s focus is easily broken; attention wavers often. *Student makes little to no attempt at staying in any type of character. *Student lacks focus and seems unprepared.
Ensemble 
If graded performance is part of a scene, rather than a monologue, assessment should be made on student’s ability to work with others *If monologue – N/A *Student’s awareness and empathy towards other cast members is very apparent. *Student’s attainment of ensemble concept and fruition of goal to work effectively en masse is superlative. *If monologue – N/A *Student’s awareness and empathy towards other cast members is acceptable. *Student’s attainment of ensemble concept and fruition of goal to work effectively en masse is acceptable. *If monologue – N/A *Student’s awareness and empathy towards other cast members is weak. *Student seems to have little concept of how to work as an ensemble. *If monologue – N/A *Student’s awareness and empathy towards other cast members is non existent. *Student has no concept of how to work as an ensemble.

 

  • This Author:

    Paul Mroczka

    Paul Mroczka has served Theatre By the Sea as associate director and playwright-in-residence. He has directed for companies including North Country Center for the Arts, Pontine Movement Theatre, The Theatre of Newburyport and the Palace Theatre. A former National Endowment for the Arts fellow in playwriting, he has also garnered a Shubert Fellowship, the Jason Miller Award and has received grants from the New Hampshire Council for the Humanities. His plays have been performed at New York’s La MaMa La Galleria, Nat Horne Theatre, and Manhattan Punchline Theatre, among others. His interactive planetarium show, Pathfinders, is running at the Christa McAuliffe Planetarium in Concord, NH. Recent directorial assignments include Good People, Steel Magnolias, and The Complete World of Sports (Abridged) at The Barnstormers Playhouse in New Hampshire, and Rumors, Orpheus in the Underworld, and The Glass Menagerie at PSU. This summer Paul finished an initial draft of his new play, Smart Money ... Read Full
    Loading Disqus Comments ...
    Loading Facebook Comments ...

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *