Is it all just an ILLUSION?
Tue, 27 May 2003, 03:30 pmWalter Plinge16 posts in thread
Is it all just an ILLUSION?
Tue, 27 May 2003, 03:30 pmI have been studying acting on and off for about 3 years and have come across a number of interpretations of teachers and actors about the whole process. It is all just an illusion, if it looks real its good enough ..... after all its a "craft".
While other actors and teachers believed that it is an art and it is possible to live the part and become the character. The actor is the creator under the guidence of the director.
Are we all just a bunch of crafty illusionists or are we cabable of creating and living the part?
To me Art has more meaning than craft, and I have seen the attitudes in fellow actors, directors and teachers the difference of those who "fake" it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart.
It has to have meaning otherwise whats the point of doing it? After all the purpose of the actor ultimately is to move the audience?
We can't do that by faking it?
If we do who does that make us, to cheat the audience like that.
While other actors and teachers believed that it is an art and it is possible to live the part and become the character. The actor is the creator under the guidence of the director.
Are we all just a bunch of crafty illusionists or are we cabable of creating and living the part?
To me Art has more meaning than craft, and I have seen the attitudes in fellow actors, directors and teachers the difference of those who "fake" it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart.
It has to have meaning otherwise whats the point of doing it? After all the purpose of the actor ultimately is to move the audience?
We can't do that by faking it?
If we do who does that make us, to cheat the audience like that.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Sat, 31 May 2003, 11:47 pm...But sorting out the nuances of the words "art" and "craft" still hasn't quite reconciled me to the arguments above...in fact, I don't think the terminology used has been all that helpful.
Daz says it's possible to "Live the part", and "become the character"....do you really mean that? So you think it's really possible, even for just a two hour duration, to walk around on a stage believing you're Julius Caesar, for example, and not just an actor doing a good job of faking it?
Besides the faculty that allows you to remain on a pre-determined script, in a historical context, and to realise that you're not actually dead as you're lying in a pool of tomato sauce in the middle of Act III...a good performer would be constantly monitoring his audience, the other characters, where the lighting is, the acoustics of the space, etc etc...all to do with technique (a much better word) and not with "becoming" the character.
Forget the word 'craft' for a moment... even the best Art with a capital A can move us and represent all that's clever and beautiful and poignant about the human condition...but we still KNOW it's not real...we never expected it to be when we bought our ticket, and we won't think so even as we're applauding a wonderfully truthful performance.
It can perhaps come close to reminding me of reality, but in all truth if I HONESTLY thought the performers were REALLY becoming their characters, I'd be a bit disturbed, and would definitely think that THEY were.
Daz also wrote about "the difference of those who 'fake' it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart."
What's wrong with faking it convincingly? Surely the operative word here is "convincingly"?
Sounds to me like you're fully immersing yourself in a Method technique, and please don't get the impression I am taking issue with that...in fact, I am currently taking a course based on Method myself, and finding it extremely helpful. It's valuable and vital training.
But there are viable alternatives, and degrees of concentration. Also, there are plenty of performers who may not ever undergo any formal training but can intuitively grasp the concepts of performance to deliver a thoroughly convincing one, without necessarily having a defined 'craft' or technique.
Interesting to hear Craig K's concern about translating this technique into the artificial world of acting for camera...in actual fact, the Method school of clearly defined motivation, character objectives, and truth, is arguably the best way of coping with a medium where the actor is not in control; where scenes are shot out of sequence and an enormous amount is conveyed by the mere flicker of thought behind the eyes. It would almost be impossible to find a truthful character without at least an intuitive grasp of technique that much of Method acting is based upon. (But again, the performer is always aware of the camera, the marks on the floor, and whose line comes next...the technique is to do with appearing to block it out, and portraying the character as if it were real.)
In fact, that's the best phrase to sum up what the actor does, and how the audience judges them..."AS IF". A performance only has to appear "as if" it were real, given the assumed circumstances, to be deemed a 'truthful' performance.
Lastly, there are styles of performance that are extremely entertaining (another key word that's been a bit overlooked) and have nothing at all to do with "becoming" the character. One example is Glynn Nicholas's style of performance in shows like 'Kissing Frogs'...he continually breaks out of character, creates characters with only a modicum of belief, and creates a physical environment that largely exists to demonstrate how funny he is; yet I can come away having been utterly transported into the 'reality' of his world, and reflected on many great poignant moments that had a strong basis in real-life relationships.
A lot of 'physical theatre' performances will incorporate moves that don't stem from any character motivation or objective...they come from a more wholistic, aesthetic agenda. And yet you can still appreciate a good, 'believable' performance and distinguish it from a bad.
Unfortunately, all this talk about whether or not a performer is "in character" or has a good grasp of technique doesn't necessarily correlate to whether or not I'll find them entertaining...and whatever technique you use, that's the only reason I'm a bum on a seat in the first place.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Daz says it's possible to "Live the part", and "become the character"....do you really mean that? So you think it's really possible, even for just a two hour duration, to walk around on a stage believing you're Julius Caesar, for example, and not just an actor doing a good job of faking it?
Besides the faculty that allows you to remain on a pre-determined script, in a historical context, and to realise that you're not actually dead as you're lying in a pool of tomato sauce in the middle of Act III...a good performer would be constantly monitoring his audience, the other characters, where the lighting is, the acoustics of the space, etc etc...all to do with technique (a much better word) and not with "becoming" the character.
Forget the word 'craft' for a moment... even the best Art with a capital A can move us and represent all that's clever and beautiful and poignant about the human condition...but we still KNOW it's not real...we never expected it to be when we bought our ticket, and we won't think so even as we're applauding a wonderfully truthful performance.
It can perhaps come close to reminding me of reality, but in all truth if I HONESTLY thought the performers were REALLY becoming their characters, I'd be a bit disturbed, and would definitely think that THEY were.
Daz also wrote about "the difference of those who 'fake' it convincingly and those who mean it with all their heart."
What's wrong with faking it convincingly? Surely the operative word here is "convincingly"?
Sounds to me like you're fully immersing yourself in a Method technique, and please don't get the impression I am taking issue with that...in fact, I am currently taking a course based on Method myself, and finding it extremely helpful. It's valuable and vital training.
But there are viable alternatives, and degrees of concentration. Also, there are plenty of performers who may not ever undergo any formal training but can intuitively grasp the concepts of performance to deliver a thoroughly convincing one, without necessarily having a defined 'craft' or technique.
Interesting to hear Craig K's concern about translating this technique into the artificial world of acting for camera...in actual fact, the Method school of clearly defined motivation, character objectives, and truth, is arguably the best way of coping with a medium where the actor is not in control; where scenes are shot out of sequence and an enormous amount is conveyed by the mere flicker of thought behind the eyes. It would almost be impossible to find a truthful character without at least an intuitive grasp of technique that much of Method acting is based upon. (But again, the performer is always aware of the camera, the marks on the floor, and whose line comes next...the technique is to do with appearing to block it out, and portraying the character as if it were real.)
In fact, that's the best phrase to sum up what the actor does, and how the audience judges them..."AS IF". A performance only has to appear "as if" it were real, given the assumed circumstances, to be deemed a 'truthful' performance.
Lastly, there are styles of performance that are extremely entertaining (another key word that's been a bit overlooked) and have nothing at all to do with "becoming" the character. One example is Glynn Nicholas's style of performance in shows like 'Kissing Frogs'...he continually breaks out of character, creates characters with only a modicum of belief, and creates a physical environment that largely exists to demonstrate how funny he is; yet I can come away having been utterly transported into the 'reality' of his world, and reflected on many great poignant moments that had a strong basis in real-life relationships.
A lot of 'physical theatre' performances will incorporate moves that don't stem from any character motivation or objective...they come from a more wholistic, aesthetic agenda. And yet you can still appreciate a good, 'believable' performance and distinguish it from a bad.
Unfortunately, all this talk about whether or not a performer is "in character" or has a good grasp of technique doesn't necessarily correlate to whether or not I'll find them entertaining...and whatever technique you use, that's the only reason I'm a bum on a seat in the first place.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···