"Macbeth", on the contrary, uses very elevated language, of that era (Elizabethan). The scene is based around a realistic topic, and is acted to suit, with very few representational aspects. The only exception being Macbeth's soliloquy at the end of the scene, which is of a presentational style.
In the Macbeth scene (Act II, scene ii), Lady Macbeth is more dominant than Macbeth, as she tries to keep control of the situation and quell Macbeth's fears and guilt. The power structure is simply: Lady Macbeth above Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is much more composed than Macbeth, keeping a straight posture and controlling her actions. She remains calm, no matter how she actually is feeling; until the point when she sees the knife, and then loses her composure slightly. Lady Macbeth and Macbeth remain quite close together and speak in hushed (stage) whispers, as it is in the dead of night. However, Lady Macbeth gains her dominance mainly from the way she acts in contrast to Macbeth. When Macbeth is panicky and has a hunched, accused position, concerned for what will happen to him, Lady Macbeth is calm, composed, more relaxed and generally much more in control of the situation. This provides the quite distinct power structure. The two react to each other realistically and believably.
In "Whose life is it anyway?" the Judge is above Ken in the power structure, and is the authoritative figure in the situation. This is showed by Ken's lack of movement and mobility and how the Judge exploits that (by moving around Ken, behind him - Ken cannot turn round to look). This also applies for Ken's facing, as he can only face and position himself in one direction, whereas the Judge has freedom of movement. Ken's posture is uncontrollably slouched and hunched - showing his disability, yet again, a comparison is made between this fact and the Judge's actions.
Contrary to the few differences, the style of the two scenes was, in fact, very similar. Both were mainly representational, and both had a definite power structure and dominance - as shown by Lady Macbeth's authoritarian-like control of the scene and Ken's inability to move.
Yet, the mood of the two scenes was very different - as were the views on Death offered by both scenes. The mood in "Macbeth" was of sombre guilt; whereas in "Whose life is it anyway?" it was of expectancy and anticipation. The views on Death offered by "Macbeth" are very grim and vile, carried out in deceitful acts; in "Whose life is it anyway?" Death was scene as an escape or a rescue for Ken's.
Since both of the scenes were of a realistic approach to theatre, the actors had to bear in mind their approach to acting their roles.
Since we chose to act "Macbeth" in a realistic, representational style, the actors played their roles externally. It seemed difficult to try and imagine yourself in a situation similar to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth - after having killed somebody. However, that was not the only reason for choosing that style of acting. Acting externally meant the actors could act how they thought Macbeth and Lady Macbeth should act, rather than putting theirselves into that situation. By doing so, the actors gave a greater sense of realism than would have been possible by acting internally. In addition, focusing their attention onto getting the dramatic techniques more precise and profound - including showing the power structure and dominance. It enabled a more efficient way of acting the scene; instead of trying to act as if we were in a completely foreign and unimaginable scene.
When acting "Whose life is it anyway?" the actors divided in their approaches to acting the characters. When playing the judge, we opted to play in an external, less-emotionally involved approach - in the hope of making his role formal and authoritarian. The judge plays a role that, as we interpreted it, seems superior and above the facets of humanity - deciding the fate of a man. Thus, the character was played as we expected him to act - showing little emotion and in a very formal manner. However, this did not seem entirely appropriate. By sitting him on a chair on top a rostra-stage, the judge did not seem to be exploiting Ken's disabilities - which would have showed his dominance. Therefore, we opted to make the judge more mobile, making him walk around and behind Ken (who was sitting on a chair in front of the rostra). This gave us several advantages; the rostra still helped to represent the court-scene and the judge could exploit Ken's restrictions - all of which demonstrated the judges authority and dominance. To maintain a sense of formality in his actions, the Judge speaks eloquently yet without showing too much emotion or involvement. The judge uses adequate hand-gesticulation, when reasoning and considering - yet not using any exaggeration.
On the contrary, Ken was acted with an internal approach. We felt this would be more appropriate as his role is of a person restricted by a disability who feels rejected and let down by society. It therefore seemed more logical to adapt to that mindset and play that part from the inside out - acting on emotions and feelings, rather than mechanical logic. When acting as Ken, there was very little that could be done in terms of gesticulating or movement - as he could do neither. Thus, emphasis was put onto expression and speech. Ken speaks his lines quite slowly and patiently, yet with emphasis on words we felt were most heartfelt. For example: (underlining represents emphasis, hyphens represent slight pauses)
"Look at me here. I can do nothing, not even basic - primitive - functions."